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

[SSJPhenom]

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

So because CM Punk does an elbow drop off of the top rope then he must respect Savage more than he does 'Taker? Punk also does a suicide dive in a lot of his matches. Well hell, didn't 'Taker do that a time or two?

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.

Yea and look at 'Taker's opponents compared to Savage's opponents at 'Mania? 'Taker spent a number of years wrestling people that were either out of their primes and old(Snuka, Roberts) or wrestling horrible gimmick wrestlers(King Kong Bundy, Giant Gonzalez). It's worth mentioning though, that when he finally got to wrestle people that were good in the ring, he showed exactly what he could do and he didn't disappoint.

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

So Savage put over people that were already over? Warrior had already been WWF Champion, Dibiase was already a top heel, Steamboat was already remembered for his work in other companies, and Yoko was also over has a heel when he faced Savage.

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

No I wouldn't, however, when Savage was put in the announcers booth, he was still very capable of wrestling. I remember him being an announcer one of the top reasons he went to WCW anyway. So obviously, WWF/E didn't think that much of Savage at that time and you can't say that he went to WCW and proved them wrong. He was good in WCW for about 2 years at the most. The rest of the time, he didn't do much at all and if it wasn't for Flair, he wouldn't have done nothing in the WCW for those 2 years. Flair put him over so many times in WCW that it wasn't even funny.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Oh God this is a tough one. Both men are legends in the world of Sports Entertainment, and I'm not 100% sure who I'm going to vote for.

Taker is a bit on an enigma for this type of event. We are supposed to use the mans PRIME to determine who would win. But what is Undertakers prime? Sure, his character was fresh and new (and he won his first World Title) in the early 90's, but he didn't really have his best matches until the late 2000's, and wasn't really that good in the ring until the mid 90's.

I think Savage would find a way to beat early 90's Taker and American Bad Ass Taker, but maybe not mid 90's Taker or mid-late 2000's Taker.

And the idea that Savage has won a 1-night Tournament before is irrelevant really. This is round 1, which means both guys are fresh and no man has an advantage over the other. It also means that stamina doesn't really come into effect unless the match goes late. If Savage advances it MAY mean something, based on who is opponent is, but until then it is meaningless.

 

[Tastycles]

I've written this out twice now, so this will be brief.

So because CM Punk does an elbow drop off of the top rope then he must respect Savage more than he does 'Taker? Punk also does a suicide dive in a lot of his matches. Well hell, didn't 'Taker do that a time or two?

Are you stupid? CM Punk uses a move, which is generic across wrestling, in a completely different way to The Undertaker, and that is more of a tribute and stylistic nod than using somebody's finishing move with similar theatrics as your signature move.

Yea and look at 'Taker's opponents compared to Savage's opponents at 'Mania? 'Taker spent a number of years wrestling people that were either out of their primes and old(Snuka, Roberts) or wrestling horrible gimmick wrestlers(King Kong Bundy, Giant Gonzalez). It's worth mentioning though, that when he finally got to wrestle people that were good in the ring, he showed exactly what he could do and he didn't disappoint.

No. What happened is he faced a load of nobodies, and a statistical anomaly was built up by the time he started wrestling actual wrestlers. His matches, until the first one with Michaels, were generally poor, and now they're good, but they would be, given he has an entire year to prepare for them. Still, Savage has had at least two matches at WrestleMania that are better than every match Taker has had in his career.

So Savage put over people that were already over? Warrior had already been WWF Champion, Dibiase was already a top heel, Steamboat was already remembered for his work in other companies, and Yoko was also over has a heel when he faced Savage.

Steamboat wasn't popular with the WWF audience = Savage put him over
Warrior was coming off a lacklustre title reign = Savage put him over
Yokozuna went from Brodus Clay '93 to believable WrestleMania main eventer over the course of the Royal Rumble = Savage put him over
Ted DiBiase's first feud in the WWF = Savage put him over

The fact that you are arguing that the biggest no seller in the history of professional wrestling is better at putting people over than anyone, let alone somebody famed for their equally paced matches, shows how much of a blind fan boy you really are.

No I wouldn't, however, when Savage was put in the announcers booth, he was still very capable of wrestling. I remember him being an announcer one of the top reasons he went to WCW anyway. So obviously, WWF/E didn't think that much of Savage at that time and you can't say that he went to WCW and proved them wrong. He was good in WCW for about 2 years at the most. The rest of the time, he didn't do much at all and if it wasn't for Flair, he wouldn't have done nothing in the WCW for those 2 years. Flair put him over so many times in WCW that it wasn't even funny.

WWF didn't build the company around a 43 year old. SHIT THE BED, HE MUST BE ARSE. Just like The Undertaker and Triple H, who are on the back burner now. Actually, it's funny that you're bringing up this time in Savage's career between 1994-5, because you're right, he was in his 40s and the company moved him to the sidelines.

Of course, The Undertaker was in the prime of life and he beat Hulk Hogan, Bruno Sammartino and Jesus in a gauntlet match for the World Championship and Presidency of Earth at WrestleMania held in front of a crowd of 500,000 in Central Park.

No, wait, I have myself confused, he was in the prime of life, but actually feuded on the lower card with Mabel, Kama Mustafa and a jobber dressed as The Undertaker. That is the hallmark of not being valued.

 

[Miko]

Oh I can't wait to pick your ass apart here!! This is going to be fun!!!

Akward. . .

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.

Yeah but he doesnt have to do a lot of work to do that does he? Just turn up to the arena in eye-liner, he's a lazy bastard really, uses his gimmick to get out of HOF events and everything.

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.

Fuck off, Big Show used to do Moonsaults and Dropkicks, blows Takers high flying shit out of the water.

All Hail The Big Show!

'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!

What does anybody remember about that match? Foley falling from the cell, that is all. I respect the lengths Foley went to to make Undertaker look like a beast.

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.

Please, if you'd read my post you'd have seen that not once did I say that his storylines were boring, I said from bell to bell Undertaker was fucking awful. An akward, chokehold machine.

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.

So you admit that he was routinely beaten.

You must have never seen his matches with Kane,

Sadly I did, and I try to defend that WrestleMania match, but it was pretty shoddy, Kane has put on much, much better matches, with better wrestlers that Undertaker.

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!

Decent matches at best, with some of the best workers of all fucking time. All of whom had better matches with other people, Bret had a better match against Diesel than he ever did against Undertaker. SummerSlam 98 against Austin was a poor effort when stacked up against the matches that Austin was having against other people, namely the ones mentioned in your list, plus much better matches with the likes of Foley and Kane than Undertaker could ever dream of. In that sense, Randy Savage is upstaged by no man.

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.

You need to learn to read properly, maybe they would rather see him as the Deadman, doesnt really matter against what I actually said though does it?

Seriously, do you know a damn thing about wrestling?

Enough to spot a guy thats dreadfully overrated and overhyped on the internet, usually by the very same people that run down better wrestlers.

So his matches with HBK at 'Mania were not as good as his match with HHH at 'Mania 17?

Not really.

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.

A fuckload of finishers, false finishes and laying around for ages? Sign me up, I used to do that shit in my living room.

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 thats the case, then apart from his outright dreadfull mid-card fueds, why does Undertaker always feel the need to go after the World Title?

If there has ever been anyone in wrestling that is bigger than the Titles then it's Andre and 'Taker.

Only in that other people seem to win or keep Title belts at their expense.

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?

I know enough to know that Undertaker has been beaten by such greats as Ken Anderson, repeatedly at that. Hey, everybody loses, but to paint Undertaker as a dominant force is a load of bollocks.

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.

BWAHAHAHA where did I say that? I said Savage has enough wins over top level talent to prove that he's more than capable of beating Undertaker. He's outsmarted and beaten more dominant competitors than Taker in the past, he can do it again. Anybody who thinks Undertaker beating Savage is a foregone conclusion is a bit of a twat, Orton, Jericho and again Ken Anderson prove that wrestlers who arent as good as Savage was can get the best of the Deadman. Those names are taken from the top of my head or from Tastycles posts by the way.

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.

Give me a minute, you repeatedly questioning my intellegence and knowledge has made me think, I am just going to stick the kettle on and have a moment of silent reflection.

It's ok for you to be a Savage fan, but to say such asinine things about 'Taker is just fucking stupid!

Not particularly asinine, it was just about time people started to make dents in the way Undertaker is venerated. He was not a particularly dominant force and for very long stretches of his career he wasnt a particularly entertaining wrestler. Now he has a decent finisher fest once a year.

 

[AwesomeRko]

I have to give this one to Savage. During the 80's Savage was the number two guy in the company behind Hogan, he was a massive draw and alongside Hogan he helped make WWE as massive as what it was.

Undertaker outside Wrestlemania consistently loses to the top guys. He has lost to guys like Orton, Edge, Rock and Austin all of whom could be considered top guys in their companies at their own respective times a lot more than he has won. I don't see why the Macho Man would be any different. There is a

Taker's legacy is his consistency and longetivity yet he has never been truly dominant for a sustained period at any point in his career (although an argument could be made for the MOD years I suppose). There is a reason why in spite of wrestling in the WWE for over 20 years he has won only six or seven world titles. Savage in his prime takes this he was a bigger star than Undertaker at any given point in an admittedly long and illustrious career.

 

[SSJPhenom]

No. What happened is he faced a load of nobodies, and a statistical anomaly was built up by the time he started wrestling actual wrestlers. His matches, until the first one with Michaels, were generally poor, and now they're good, but they would be, given he has an entire year to prepare for them. Still, Savage has had at least two matches at WrestleMania that are better than every match Taker has had in his career.

Again, this is opinion because I'd take HBK/'Taker at 'Mania 25 over anything that Savage has done. I'm not just talking about 'Mania though. It's not 'Taker's fault that he was booked against horrible gimmick wrestlers for the first 5 or 6 years of his career is it? However, when he started getting in the ring with people like Bret Hart, Foley, Austin, HBK, The Rock, and on and on; he showed exactly what he could do and that he wasn't just another one of those horrible gimmick wrestlers. From about '96 through his injury in late '99, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches and I don't think that you can disagree with that.

Steamboat wasn't popular with the WWF audience = Savage put him over
Warrior was coming off a lackluster title reign = Savage put him over
Yokozuna went from Brodus Clay '93 to believable WrestleMania main eventer over the course of the Royal Rumble = Savage put him over
Ted DiBiase's first feud in the WWF = Savage put him over

OK. So then 'Taker put over Hardy in 2002. He put over Lesnar and showed him to be a great monster/dominant heel. He put over Foley with the WWF audience. He put over Kane. He put over Orton. He put over Edge. There are so many more that could be named, but I digress.

The fact that you are arguing that the biggest no seller in the history of professional wrestling is better at putting people over than anyone, let alone somebody famed for their equally paced matches, shows how much of a blind fan boy you really are.

I love it when people mention 'Taker and his no selling for about maybe the first 3 or 4 years of his career. I've said this before but I guess some people just don't understand. Back then, when 'Taker debuted, it was all about a wrestler's gimmick and character. It was a part of 'Taker's character to be dead or a zombie and damn it, he played his character to perfection. When he had his first feud with Foley and on after that, he didn't have a problem selling. He is better at putting people over than Savage. I'm sorry that you think that me saying that makes me a blind fan boy, but he has put more people over in wrestling than Savage has.

WWF didn't build the company around a 43 year old. SHIT THE BED, HE MUST BE ARSE. Just like The Undertaker and Triple H, who are on the back burner now. Actually, it's funny that you're bringing up this time in Savage's career between 1994-5, because you're right, he was in his 40s and the company moved him to the sidelines.

WWF didn't have to build the company around him, however, he could've been used better and I think that you'd agree. 'Taker was also in his 40's in late 2009-early 2010 when he had his last title reign and that WHC title reign was the longest that anyone had held the WHC since about 2007. I think it may still be the longest reign since then.

Of course, The Undertaker was in the prime of life and he beat Hulk Hogan, Bruno Sammartino and Jesus in a gauntlet match for the World Championship and Presidency of Earth at WrestleMania held in front of a crowd of 500,000 in Central Park.

No, wait, I have myself confused, he was in the prime of life, but actually feuded on the lower card with Mabel, Kama Mustafa and a jobber dressed as The Undertaker. That is the hallmark of not being valued.

'Taker may have been in the prime of his LIFE at that point in time; however, he was a damn sight away from the prime of his career. I consider 'Taker's career prime to be from about 1996 through 2007. During this period of time, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches both as the Deadman and ABA. Of course, he now has the one great match a year, but he really started restricting his schedule around the end of 2007 and in 2008.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Akward. . .



Yeah but he doesnt have to do a lot of work to do that does he? Just turn up to the arena in eye-liner, he's a lazy bastard really, uses his gimmick to get out of HOF events and everything.



Fuck off, Big Show used to do Moonsaults and Dropkicks, blows Takers high flying shit out of the water.

All Hail The Big Show!



What does anybody remember about that match? Foley falling from the cell, that is all. I respect the lengths Foley went to to make Undertaker look like a beast.



Please, if you'd read my post you'd have seen that not once did I say that his storylines were boring, I said from bell to bell Undertaker was fucking awful. An akward, chokehold machine.



So you admit that he was routinely beaten.



Sadly I did, and I try to defend that WrestleMania match, but it was pretty shoddy, Kane has put on much, much better matches, with better wrestlers that Undertaker.



Decent matches at best, with some of the best workers of all fucking time. All of whom had better matches with other people, Bret had a better match against Diesel than he ever did against Undertaker. SummerSlam 98 against Austin was a poor effort when stacked up against the matches that Austin was having against other people, namely the ones mentioned in your list, plus much better matches with the likes of Foley and Kane than Undertaker could ever dream of. In that sense, Randy Savage is upstaged by no man.



You need to learn to read properly, maybe they would rather see him as the Deadman, doesnt really matter against what I actually said though does it?



Enough to spot a guy thats dreadfully overrated and overhyped on the internet, usually by the very same people that run down better wrestlers.



Not really.



A fuckload of finishers, false finishes and laying around for ages? Sign me up, I used to do that shit in my living room.



If thats the case, then apart from his outright dreadfull mid-card fueds, why does Undertaker always feel the need to go after the World Title?



Only in that other people seem to win or keep Title belts at their expense.



I know enough to know that Undertaker has been beaten by such greats as Ken Anderson, repeatedly at that. Hey, everybody loses, but to paint Undertaker as a dominant force is a load of bollocks.



BWAHAHAHA where did I say that? I said Savage has enough wins over top level talent to prove that he's more than capable of beating Undertaker. He's outsmarted and beaten more dominant competitors than Taker in the past, he can do it again. Anybody who thinks Undertaker beating Savage is a foregone conclusion is a bit of a twat, Orton, Jericho and again Ken Anderson prove that wrestlers who arent as good as Savage was can get the best of the Deadman. Those names are taken from the top of my head or from Tastycles posts by the way.



Give me a minute, you repeatedly questioning my intellegence and knowledge has made me think, I am just going to stick the kettle on and have a moment of silent reflection.



Not particularly asinine, it was just about time people started to make dents in the way Undertaker is venerated. He was not a particularly dominant force and for very long stretches of his career he wasnt a particularly entertaining wrestler. Now he has a decent finisher fest once a year.

I just can't respond to this one. The only thing that I can do is thank you for bringing to my attention your apparent hard on for Ken Anderson. Yet another wrestler that 'Taker has put over in his legendary career.

BTW, laying around with false finishes and what not? Really, that's all those matches were with HBK and HHH? Have you ever even seen Steamboat/Savage at WM III? Same damn thing. False finishes and laying around.

I would pick your post apart, but you'd just back track and say that what you said is actually not what said or what you meant is actually not what you meant to say or some dumb shit like that. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do this with you.

Just vote 'Taker people.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Again, this is opinion because I'd take HBK/'Taker at 'Mania 25 over anything that Savage has done. I'm not just talking about 'Mania though. It's not 'Taker's fault that he was booked against horrible gimmick wrestlers for the first 5 or 6 years of his career is it? However, when he started getting in the ring with people like Bret Hart, Foley, Austin, HBK, The Rock, and on and on; he showed exactly what he could do and that he wasn't just another one of those horrible gimmick wrestlers. From about '96 through his injury in late '99, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches and I don't think that you can disagree with that.

I can disagree with that. He and Austin had some of the worst main event chemistry I've ever seen. The only good match I can remember from that time you just mentioned was Hell in a Cell. Other than that, his matches were dreadful and don't even bring up Kane.

OK. So then 'Taker put over Hardy in 2002. He put over Lesnar and showed him to be a great monster/dominant heel. He put over Foley with the WWF audience. He put over Kane. He put over Orton. He put over Edge. There are so many more that could be named, but I digress.

If Undertaker wanted to truly put Lesnar over, he would have done that in Unforgiven and not had to have his hand basically broken to put him over at No Mercy.

I love it when people mention 'Taker and his no selling for about maybe the first 3 or 4 years of his career. I've said this before but I guess some people just don't understand. Back then, when 'Taker debuted, it was all about a wrestler's gimmick and character. It was a part of 'Taker's character to be dead or a zombie and damn it, he played his character to perfection. When he had his first feud with Foley and on after that, he didn't have a problem selling. He is better at putting people over than Savage. I'm sorry that you think that me saying that makes me a blind fan boy, but he has put more people over in wrestling than Savage has.

That no selling didn't happen only for the first years of his career. It happened when he was supposed to be this American Bad Ass. Basically, if you weren't the Big Show, he wasn't going to sell for you. I saw it time and time again.

Taker may have been in the prime of his LIFE at that point in time; however, he was a damn sight away from the prime of his career. I consider 'Taker's career prime to be from about 1996 through 2007. During this period of time, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches both as the Deadman and ABA. Of course, he now has the one great match a year, but he really started restricting his schedule around the end of 2007 and in 2008.

He had terrible matches as the American Bad Ass. In a four month stretch, he had shitty matches with Rock, Austin, and HHH. I'll leave out Hogan because he was almost 50 but still.

Here are the list of the only damn good matches I can remember Undertaker having from that time period you just mentioned.

HIAC vs. Shawn Michaels
WM 17 vs. HHH
WM 18 vs. Flair
WM 21 vs. Orton
No Way Out 2006 vs. Angle
WM 23 vs. Batista

I know you would say that I listed mostly WM matches but I would still say that Savage's were greater.

 

[AwesomeRko]

'Taker may have been in the prime of his LIFE at that point in time; however, he was a damn sight away from the prime of his career. I consider 'Taker's career prime to be from about 1996 through 2007. During this period of time, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches both as the Deadman and ABA. Of course, he now has the one great match a year, but he really started restricting his schedule around the end of 2007 and in 2008.

The issue is that you reference Taker's prime as between 96-2007, the fact that you can do that is great and testifies to his longetivity but there was really no point during this period where he could be considered one of the faces of the company.

You had Bret Hart/HBK, then Rock/Austin, Lesnar/Angle/HHH and then Cena/Orton/Edge, all of these guys mania excluded were more dominant in their respective periods than Taker and generally tended to beat him in the big matches at least. Off the top of my head HBK, Austin, Rock, Orton, Edge and Lesnar all have won more than they have lost against him and theres a good chance Angle and Hart have too. Savage in the 80's was matched only by Hogan in terms of popularity and was at least as big as most of the names on that list, Taker would put him over.

 

[Tastycles]

Again, this is opinion because I'd take HBK/'Taker at 'Mania 25 over anything that Savage has done. I'm not just talking about 'Mania though. It's not 'Taker's fault that he was booked against horrible gimmick wrestlers for the first 5 or 6 years of his career is it? However, when he started getting in the ring with people like Bret Hart, Foley, Austin, HBK, The Rock, and on and on; he showed exactly what he could do and that he wasn't just another one of those horrible gimmick wrestlers. From about '96 through his injury in late '99, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches and I don't think that you can disagree with that.

Almost all of his matches were carried by the opponents. And anyway, the reason he was booked with shit workers is because he was a shit worker. There was a dearth of talent in the WWF in 1993-6, and instead of pushing Taker, they relied on people like Owen Hart, Ludwig Borga and a 40+ Bob Backlund. Why? Because Taker was piss poor. Then some good workers came along and carried him, then when they went it was back to A-Train and piss poor matches.

OK. So then 'Taker put over Hardy in 2002. He put over Lesnar and showed him to be a great monster/dominant heel. He put over Foley with the WWF audience. He put over Kane. He put over Orton. He put over Edge. There are so many more that could be named, but I digress.

By your own criteria of criticising Savage, Lesnar, Orton and Edge were all already World Champions before they faced Taker. Kane was over because of an immense build provided by Paul Bearer, and it was nice of Taker to stand next to Foley as he fell off the top of the cell.

I love it when people mention 'Taker and his no selling for about maybe the first 3 or 4 years of his career. I've said this before but I guess some people just don't understand. Back then, when 'Taker debuted, it was all about a wrestler's gimmick and character. It was a part of 'Taker's character to be dead or a zombie and damn it, he played his character to perfection. When he had his first feud with Foley and on after that, he didn't have a problem selling. He is better at putting people over than Savage. I'm sorry that you think that me saying that makes me a blind fan boy, but he has put more people over in wrestling than Savage has.

You're just wrong, and all of your examples are self-contradictory by what you're putting Savage down on. Taker still no sells. When he sits up? That's no-selling. When he gets up and nails people who have just hit him with weapons? That's no selling. Taker has sold properly in about 5 matches in his entire career.

WWF didn't have to build the company around him, however, he could've been used better and I think that you'd agree. 'Taker was also in his 40's in late 2009-early 2010 when he had his last title reign and that WHC title reign was the longest that anyone had held the WHC since about 2007. I think it may still be the longest reign since then.

The reason he wasn't used differently is because he wasn't good enough.

'Taker may have been in the prime of his LIFE at that point in time; however, he was a damn sight away from the prime of his career. I consider 'Taker's career prime to be from about 1996 through 2007. During this period of time, 'Taker was putting on some damn good matches both as the Deadman and ABA. Of course, he now has the one great match a year, but he really started restricting his schedule around the end of 2007 and in 2008.

So the company still wasn't built around him and he was feuding with luminaries like A-Train, Mark Henry and the Big Bossman at WrestleMania. Face it, Undertaker is a sideshow, and always has been. The reason he's stayed around is because he's never been the focus, so he's never been overexposed. Nothing wrong with that, but in the conversation about the greatest of all time, you have to have at least been the focus of your own company.

 

[SSJPhenom]

LJL, I respect you as a poster; however, I think that you're just arguing for the sake of it here.

I can disagree with that. He and Austin had some of the worst main event chemistry I've ever seen. The only good match I can remember from that time you just mentioned was Hell in a Cell. Other than that, his matches were dreadful and don't even bring up Kane.

The first title match that he ever had with Austin, during the summer of '97 was a damn good match. I liked their match at Summer Slam '98 also. His matches with Foley were damn brilliant. Ground Zero against HBK and again at the Royal Rumble of '98 were good. His match with Bret Hart at Summer Slam of '97 was good.

Honestly, you're either disagreeing because you just want someone to respond to you, you didn't see the matches, or you just want Savage to win so bad that you'd say some shit like that.

Tell me, what do you think makes a great match. I really want to know.

If Undertaker wanted to truly put Lesnar over, he would have done that in Unforgiven and not had to have his hand basically broken to put him over at No Mercy.

So 'Taker booked these matches and it was him that chose how the storyline would progress. Give me a fucking break. I don't care how he did it, at the end of the feud, Lesnar looked more dominant and more like a monster heel than he did going into it.

That no selling didn't happen only for the first years of his career. It happened when he was supposed to be this American Bad Ass. Basically, if you weren't the Big Show, he wasn't going to sell for you. I saw it time and time again.

Give me some examples, please. I remember him selling pretty good for Lesnar and he fucking tapped out to Angle. Honestly man, this no selling shit is old.

He had terrible matches as the American Bad Ass. In a four month stretch, he had shitty matches with Rock, Austin, and HHH. I'll leave out Hogan because he was almost 50 but still.

I consider the Triple Threat he had with Rock and Angle to be one of the best of all time. WM 17 was a shit match? His matches with Angle at this point in time were shit? They had a damn good match on Smackdown. Maybe you didn't like the matches and that's OK; however, they weren't shit matches at all.

Here are the list of the only damn good matches I can remember Undertaker having from that time period you just mentioned.

HIAC vs. Shawn Michaels
WM 17 vs. HHH
WM 18 vs. Flair
WM 21 vs. Orton
No Way Out 2006 vs. Angle
WM 23 vs. Batista

I know you would say that I listed mostly WM matches but I would still say that Savage's were greater.

This is based purely off of your opinion and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. I named what I consider to be damn good matches of his above and you left out a lot of matches honestly. Like his HIAC with Orton, HIAC with Lesnar, Triple Threat with Angle and The Rock, Some of his matches with Foley, and there are so many others.

 

[SSJPhenom]

The issue is that you reference Taker's prime as between 96-2007, the fact that you can do that is great and testifies to his longetivity but there was really no point during this period where he could be considered one of the faces of the company.

You had Bret Hart/HBK, then Rock/Austin, Lesnar/Angle/HHH and then Cena/Orton/Edge, all of these guys mania excluded were more dominant in their respective periods than Taker and generally tended to beat him in the big matches at least. Off the top of my head HBK, Austin, Rock, Orton, Edge and Lesnar all have won more than they have lost against him and theres a good chance Angle and Hart have too. Savage in the 80's was matched only by Hogan in terms of popularity and was at least as big as most of the names on that list, Taker would put him over.

4 on 1, I love it.

It's no secret that 'Taker has never really been "THE GUY" in the company. That much is true, however, he has consistently been among the top 3 in the company and he's made a damn good career of doing that. Sure he's never been the face, but he's been a guy that could always be plugged into the main event when needed or carry the title when needed.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Almost all of his matches were carried by the opponents. And anyway, the reason he was booked with shit workers is because he was a shit worker. There was a dearth of talent in the WWF in 1993-6, and instead of pushing Taker, they relied on people like Owen Hart, Ludwig Borga and a 40+ Bob Backlund. Why? Because Taker was piss poor. Then some good workers came along and carried him, then when they went it was back to A-Train and piss poor matches.

'Taker was carried by his opponents? Really? He was piss poor, really? I tell you what, if 'Taker has been carried in all of his great matches like you say, then Cena was carried by HBK at WM 23, by HHH at WM 22, and on and on. That just isn't the case though. 'Taker was never carried in any of those matches. As a matter of fact, in the HIAC with HBK, I feel confident in saying that 'Taker carried most of that match himself.

You're grasping now.

By your own criteria of criticizing Savage, Lesnar, Orton and Edge were all already World Champions before they faced Taker. Kane was over because of an immense build provided by Paul Bearer, and it was nice of Taker to stand next to Foley as he fell off the top of the cell.

That was my point though. If you can say that Savage had put over the ones that you mentioned, then there are so many more that 'Taker has put over that it's not even funny.

BTW, did you really just say that Bearer put over Kane? Really? You want to take credit away from 'Taker so bad that you'd stoop that low? Also, with Foley, I wasn't talking about their HIAC match. I was talking about their feud in '96. It was 'Taker that put him over with the WWF audience, like it or not.

You're just wrong, and all of your examples are self-contradictory by what you're putting Savage down on. Taker still no sells. When he sits up? That's no-selling. Taker has sold properly in about 5 matches in his entire career.

So because he has his one sit up per match he no sells? Well then hell, Hogan no sells because he hulks up, HBK no-sold because he done the little kick-up, Sting no-sold because he would beat his chest and yell whoo. Should I go on?

So the company still wasn't built around him and he was feuding with luminaries like A-Train, Mark Henry and the Big Bossman at WrestleMania. Face it, Undertaker is a sideshow, and always has been. The reason he's stayed around is because he's never been the focus, so he's never been overexposed. Nothing wrong with that, but in the conversation about the greatest of all time, you have to have at least been the focus of your own company.

No, the company never has been built around 'Taker and what's your point? It's never been built around Savage either. He's always been second fiddle to Hogan in both WWF and WCW. If we are really going to use who's been the face of the company, drawing power, and all of that as to who the greatest is in this tournament every year, then the tournament should only be between Hogan, Austin, The Rock, and Cena every year.

 

[AwesomeRko]

4 on 1, I love it.

It's no secret that 'Taker has never really been "THE GUY" in the company. That much is true, however, he has consistently been among the top 3 in the company and he's made a damn good career of doing that. Sure he's never been the face, but he's been a guy that could always be plugged into the main event when needed or carry the title when needed.

I would agree to an extent, he had made a terrific sustained impact and has consistently been a main-event player who can give any of the top guys a good match. Yet I'd put him more into the Mick Foley, Y2J type category as a guy who is clearly main-event calibre, has massive talent but frequently (minus Wrestlemania), puts over and loses to the top guys.

Granted he has recorded odd and even significant victories over Rock, Austin, HBK etc but he has lost more than he has won and usually loses the overall fued. Thus in a once in a lifetime special tournament type format I just couldn't see him going over 80's Macho Man.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

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.

True. But most of Savage's wins have come as a result of some sort of distraction while Savage has been pinned clean by both these guys. Savage has never been booked as the better man when it came to feuding with these two. As in the case with these two guys, Savage is someone who may win via some cheating but the favorite will have to be Undertaker. I'd prefer voting for the favorite.

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.

Taker has two wins and two losses against HBK and one draw. An even record. Edge and Orton have beaten him via interferences mostly but he has won more against them. He has 4 wins and two losses against Hart so I'm not sure how you can say that is an equal record.

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.

Undertaker's was Edge's biggest adversary in that La Familia angle. You missed Taker's feud with Batista which was one of the highlights of 2007. I'd say that the Taker/ Orton feud wasn't a midcard feud. Also, Taker, for the last 6-7 years, has been one of the guys whom WWE builds their biggest show around regularly. That's WrestleMania.

Also, you do not need to have a major role at all times in your career to cement yourself as a legend. You need to create something special around yourself so that fans remember you for years and years to come. And you know as well as me that, say, 20-30 years from now Undertaker, due to his gimmick, his WrestleMania streak and many other things will be more remembered than Savage. Savage was a great performer but there are more things about Taker that stand out than they did about Savage.

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.

The feud with Hogan was more about Hogan than about Savage. It was all set around Hogan being betrayed by a friend. Still, that is about the only time that Savage can say that he was the central figure in the company. Even if Taker has zero, Savage still has only 1 dude. Furthermore, Taker trumps Savage in lot's of other things like longlevity, staying a maineventer for a longer period of time and uniqueness.

 

[Tastycles]

'Taker was carried by his opponents? Really? He was piss poor, really? I tell you what, if 'Taker has been carried in all of his great matches like you say, then Cena was carried by HBK at WM 23, by HHH at WM 22, and on and on. That just isn't the case though. 'Taker was never carried in any of those matches. As a matter of fact, in the HIAC with HBK, I feel confident in saying that 'Taker carried most of that match himself.

You're grasping now.

I'm not grasping, it's obvious to everyone who has ever watched one of his matches that he's almost always carried. When was the last time he's had a good match with someone not known for having good matches? Savage's match with Warrior is an all-time classic, yet nobody would say Warrior was one of wrestling's great workers. Having a great match with Shawn Michaels is easy.

That was my point though. If you can say that Savage had put over the ones that you mentioned, then there are so many more that 'Taker has put over that it's not even funny.

Except none of the ones I mentioned had been world champions in the WWE when Savage first wrestled them, almost all of yours had. But don't let facts get in the way.

BTW, did you really just say that Bearer put over Kane? Really? You want to take credit away from 'Taker so bad that you'd stoop that low? Also, with Foley, I wasn't talking about their HIAC match. I was talking about their feud in '96. It was 'Taker that put him over with the WWF audience, like it or not.

Yes, if you were watching wrestling at the time, you would have seen that Kane was never more over than when he first debuted, long before he actually had the match. That was entirely down to Paul Bearer's promos, which were some of the best of all time from a non-wrestler.

Well, it wasn't, because he wasn't over until 1998. Mankind really took off when he started interacting with Vince McMahon. The Hell in a Cell put him on the map, before that he was quite lost and in and out of various characters.

So because he has his one sit up per match he no sells? Well then hell, Hogan no sells because he hulks up, HBK no-sold because he done the little kick-up, Sting no-sold because he would beat his chest and yell whoo. Should I go on?

Did I say it's because he sits up? No, I said he no sells because he no sells. At the end of a match, Taker usually looks like he has been for a stroll on the beach. The amount of times he gets up and then does a tombstone on someone, or something after he wins are countless. That's no selling. Look at Michaels or Hogan after a match, they look sweaty and knackered.

No, the company never has been built around 'Taker and what's your point? It's never been built around Savage either. He's always been second fiddle to Hogan in both WWF and WCW. If we are really going to use who's been the face of the company, drawing power, and all of that as to who the greatest is in this tournament every year, then the tournament should only be between Hogan, Austin, The Rock, and Cena every year.

You don't understand it do you? Just because Hogan was the main draw, didn't mean that he was the only person featured prominently. Wrestling always has a major story arc, that's how it works The main story WWF in 1988 was Savage and Hogan's relationship collapsing. The main story arc has never been about Undertaker, even when he was World Champion.

 

[Davi323]

I'm not grasping, it's obvious to everyone who has ever watched one of his matches that he's almost always carried. When was the last time he's had a good match with someone not known for having good matches? Savage's match with Warrior is an all-time classic, yet nobody would say Warrior was one of wrestling's great workers. Having a great match with Shawn Michaels is easy.

I will take this logic one step further. it's not that nobody would say Warrior was never one of the industry's great workers. They would say that he was in fact, one of the all-time worst. His actual wrestling ability is virtually non-existent. Randy Savage made him look like an actual honest to goodness wrestler. Not a superstar, but a WRESTLER. There isn't another wrestler on the planet that could have succeeded at that single task better than Randy Savage did. Making the Ultimate Warrior look like he knew what he was doing should have been an impossible task, and would have been for just about anyone else. It simply should not have been possible. Yet, not only did Randy Savage do it, but he turned their match into one the all-time greatest matches in WWE History. It was easily Warrior's greatest match, yet for Savage, it's just one out of the multiple choices you could pick from.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I'm not grasping, it's obvious to everyone who has ever watched one of his matches that he's almost always carried. When was the last time he's had a good match with someone not known for having good matches? Savage's match with Warrior is an all-time classic, yet nobody would say Warrior was one of wrestling's great workers. Having a great match with Shawn Michaels is easy.

He had damn good matches with Orton before Orton was known to be one of the top performers. He got good matches out of Mr. Kennedy(or Anderson). His match in 2002 with Jeff Hardy was a good one. Also, let's not forget his program with Batista which next to HHH is the best feud and performances that Big Dave had ever put on.

It takes two to tango dude. You can't say that just because 'Taker was in the ring with people like HBK and other great performers that it was all them that made the match work. If 'Taker hadn't have been as good as he was in those matches then we probably wouldn't even be having this debate as 'Taker wouldn't have made it this far in the tournament.

Except none of the ones I mentioned had been world champions in the WWE when Savage first wrestled them, almost all of yours had. But don't let facts get in the way.

Yes, Warrior was the WWF Champ before he feuded with Savage. I mentioned Orton who, before having that great program with 'Taker, had been completely and utterly buried by HHH. I mentioned Edge whom 'Taker put over as the top heel of Smackdown.

These are facts that I'm giving you.

Yes, if you were watching wrestling at the time, you would have seen that Kane was never more over than when he first debuted, long before he actually had the match. That was entirely down to Paul Bearer's promos, which were some of the best of all time from a non-wrestler.

Kane was over when he first debuted? I remember him coming out at Badd Blood and getting almost a non-existent crowd reaction. It wasn't until he started his long program with 'Taker that he started to get over as a top heel and it was because of his program with 'Taker that he won his first WWF Championship. It was for one day, but he still did it.

Well, it wasn't, because he wasn't over until 1998. Mankind really took off when he started interacting with Vince McMahon. The Hell in a Cell put him on the map, before that he was quite lost and in and out of various characters.

No, he wasn't over as a face until '98 and early '99. He was, however, one of the top heels after his debut and feud with 'Taker in '96.

Did I say it's because he sits up? No, I said he no sells because he no sells. At the end of a match, Taker usually looks like he has been for a stroll on the beach. The amount of times he gets up and then does a tombstone on someone, or something after he wins are countless. That's no selling. Look at Michaels or Hogan after a match, they look sweaty and knackered.

You need to go back and read your own post. You did say it was because he sits up that he no sells. So I guess after 'Taker's matches when he limps around the ring and limps up the entrance way, hands on his hips, and breathing hard that he doesn't look like he's been through hell? Nice to know. Also, about Hogan; in his prime he never looked like he was hurt or had just been through a tough match. After most his matches, he would dance around the ring, hand to his ear, posing, and flexing. Don't use Hogan in this bullshit argument cause you're just wrong.

You don't understand it do you? Just because Hogan was the main draw, didn't mean that he was the only person featured prominently. Wrestling always has a major story arc, that's how it works The main story WWF in 1988 was Savage and Hogan's relationship collapsing. The main story arc has never been about Undertaker, even when he was World Champion.

So Savage had one main story arc during his prime in the WWF? So I guess during the Ministry story arc that 'Taker was the top heel or anything was he? Again in '02 when he was Big Evil and won the Undisputed Title, he wasn't the top heel or in the main story arc? When he feuded with Lesnar, that wasn't the main story arc of Smackdown? I could go on if you want me to.

 

[Tastycles]

True. But most of Savage's wins have come as a result of some sort of distraction while Savage has been pinned clean by both these guys. Savage has never been booked as the better man when it came to feuding with these two. As in the case with these two guys, Savage is someone who may win via some cheating but the favorite will have to be Undertaker. I'd prefer voting for the favorite.

The way he wins is irrelevant. Savage has been able to beat just about everyone in history consistently using his antics, I don't see why that wouldn't serve him well here. It's the way he wins.

Taker has two wins and two losses against HBK and one draw. An even record. Edge and Orton have beaten him via interferences mostly but he has won more against them. He has 4 wins and two losses against Hart so I'm not sure how you can say that is an equal record.

Right you are, was looking at televised matches, which Hart has a winning record in. But I should have checked profightdb for the results of dark matches.

Undertaker's was Edge's biggest adversary in that La Familia angle. You missed Taker's feud with Batista which was one of the highlights of 2007. I'd say that the Taker/ Orton feud wasn't a midcard feud. Also, Taker, for the last 6-7 years, has been one of the guys whom WWE builds their biggest show around regularly. That's WrestleMania.

Well, it was a midcard feud, the matches happened in the middle of the card. That's what midcard means.

They don't build WrestleMania around Taker at all. Even when he headlined (3 out of 20 occasions), his feud wasn't the one that most programming was dedicated to.

Also, you do not need to have a major role at all times in your career to cement yourself as a legend. You need to create something special around yourself so that fans remember you for years and years to come. And you know as well as me that, say, 20-30 years from now Undertaker, due to his gimmick, his WrestleMania streak and many other things will be more remembered than Savage. Savage was a great performer but there are more things about Taker that stand out than they did about Savage.

Taker has never had the main role though.

And as for standing out. The Gobbledygooker and Shockmaster are remembered more than Barry Windham. Uniqueness doesn't mean quality.

The feud with Hogan was more about Hogan than about Savage. It was all set around Hogan being betrayed by a friend. Still, that is about the only time that Savage can say that he was the central figure in the company. Even if Taker has zero, Savage still has only 1 dude. Furthermore, Taker trumps Savage in lot's of other things like longlevity, staying a maineventer for a longer period of time and uniqueness.

This is just wrong. For a number of reasons. Firstly, that story was about Savage's jealousy, not Hogan. Secondly, longevity? Well taker's career has been longer in the WWE, but he's achieved less. Inefficiency is probably a more accurate description.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Randy Savage is one of the biggest stars in wrestling history. Undertaker is one of the most overrated guys in wrestling history. Savage wins.

 

[Tastycles]

He had damn good matches with Orton before Orton was known to be one of the top performers. He got good matches out of Mr. Kennedy(or Anderson). His match in 2002 with Jeff Hardy was a good one. Also, let's not forget his program with Batista which next to HHH is the best feud and performances that Big Dave had ever put on.

Batista's feud with Cena, both of them, easily trumps anything Undertaker ever did with him. A half decent match with Mr Kennedy isn't in the same league as one of the best matches ever with The Ultimate Warrior.

It takes two to tango dude. You can't say that just because 'Taker was in the ring with people like HBK and other great performers that it was all them that made the match work. If 'Taker hadn't have been as good as he was in those matches then we probably wouldn't even be having this debate as 'Taker wouldn't have made it this far in the tournament.

Well you can, because Michaels has good matches with everyone, Taker doesn't. It's pretty fucking clear who made them good.

Yes, Warrior was the WWF Champ before he feuded with Savage. I mentioned Orton who, before having that great program with 'Taker, had been completely and utterly buried by HHH. I mentioned Edge whom 'Taker put over as the top heel of Smackdown.

Edge put himself over by shagging Vickie Guerrero. Orton was still nowhere until he regained the title and started feuding with Jeff Hardy. Warrior and Savage first feuded with Warrior in 1989.

These are facts that I'm giving you.

It's spelled F-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Kane was over when he first debuted? I remember him coming out at Badd Blood and getting almost a non-existent crowd reaction. It wasn't until he started his long program with 'Taker that he started to get over as a top heel and it was because of his program with 'Taker that he won his first WWF Championship. It was for one day, but he still did it.

You don't remember that because it didn't happen.

No, he wasn't over as a face until '98 and early '99. He was, however, one of the top heels after his debut and feud with 'Taker in '96.

No, he wasn't, after he feuded with Undertaker he feuded with midcarders then he turned into Dude Love.

You need to go back and read your own post. You did say it was because he sits up that he no sells. So I guess after 'Taker's matches when he limps around the ring and limps up the entrance way, hands on his hips, and breathing hard that he doesn't look like he's been through hell? Nice to know. Also, about Hogan; in his prime he never looked like he was hurt or had just been through a tough match. After most his matches, he would dance around the ring, hand to his ear, posing, and flexing. Don't use Hogan in this bullshit argument cause you're just wrong.

How about you stop telling lies. Show me where I said that. No, Taker does look like he's been through hell when he does that. Which is about 5 times in history. I appreciate that things like facial expressions might be a little hard to read for you, but I suggest you watch a Hogan match again.

So Savage had one main story arc during his prime in the WWF? So I guess during the Ministry story arc that 'Taker was the top heel or anything was he? Again in '02 when he was Big Evil and won the Undisputed Title, he wasn't the top heel or in the main story arc? When he feuded with Lesnar, that wasn't the main story arc of Smackdown? I could go on if you want me to.

No, Vince McMahon was. Smackdown is the B show.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I would agree to an extent, he had made a terrific sustained impact and has consistently been a main-event player who can give any of the top guys a good match. Yet I'd put him more into the Mick Foley, Y2J type category as a guy who is clearly main-event calibre, has massive talent but frequently (minus Wrestlemania), puts over and loses to the top guys.

Granted he has recorded odd and even significant victories over Rock, Austin, HBK etc but he has lost more than he has won and usually loses the overall fued. Thus in a once in a lifetime special tournament type format I just couldn't see him going over 80's Macho Man.

'Taker doesn't usually lose the overall feud. Actually, and you can check this if you want, when it comes down to ending feuds, 'Taker is usually the one standing tall. Some examples would be Orton, Foley, Edge, CM Punk, Mr. Kennedy, HHH, HBK, and etc.

I'll admit that 'Taker has lost his fair share of matches to the top talent in wrestling over the past 20+ years; however, everyone that he's been in the ring with over the past 20+ years he has defeated. I've said this before and I'm going to say it again: Over the past 20+ years 'Taker has wrestled and defeated every major wrestling star not named Sting. When you take that into account and the fact that Savage has a poor record against guys that are bigger than him; I think that 'Taker comes out on top here.

 

[Miko]

What I said, and I think we can all agree that I am talking about his matches here

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.

What you replied, because you're stupid.

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.

What I replied.

Please, if you'd read my post you'd have seen that not once did I say that his storylines were boring, I said from bell to bell Undertaker was fucking awful. An akward, chokehold machine.

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

What I said, and I think we can all agree I am talking about his matches here.

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.

What you replied, because you're stupid.

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?

What I replied.

You need to learn to read properly, maybe they would rather see him as the Deadman, doesnt really matter against what I actually said though does it?

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

What I said.

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.

What you replied because you're stupid.

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.

What I replied.

BWAHAHAHA where did I say that? I said Savage has enough wins over top level talent to prove that he's more than capable of beating Undertaker. He's outsmarted and beaten more dominant competitors than Taker in the past, he can do it again. Anybody who thinks Undertaker beating Savage is a foregone conclusion is a bit of a twat, Orton, Jericho and again Ken Anderson prove that wrestlers who arent as good as Savage was can get the best of the Deadman. Those names are taken from the top of my head or from Tastycles posts by the way.

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

I just can't respond to this one. The only thing that I can do is thank you for bringing to my attention your apparent hard on for Ken Anderson. Yet another wrestler that 'Taker has put over in his legendary career.

He's shitter than Savage, but he's beaten Taker, this is kayfabe logic silly.

I would pick your post apart, but you'd just back track and say that what you said is actually not what said or what you meant is actually not what you meant to say or some dumb shit like that. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do this with you.

Plus you'd misread most of my reply, because you're stupid.

Just vote 'Taker people.

Or vote for a guy that was entertaining throughout his career, was a consistent main eventer, actually put on good matches, who brings more to the table than a admittedly terrific gimmick and the fact that he's been around for ever.

Vote Savage, the better pro-wrestler.

Taker has two wins and two losses against HBK and one draw. An even record. Edge and Orton have beaten him via interferences mostly but he has won more against them. He has 4 wins and two losses against Hart so I'm not sure how you can say that is an equal record.

So what this proves is, people of Savage's height and stature can beat Undertaker, cheers. Lets not forget that Shawn Michaels is heavily inspired by Savage, from the selling, to the elbow drop. If Michaels can beat Undertaker, a better worker like Savage can.

Also, you do not need to have a major role at all times in your career to cement yourself as a legend. You need to create something special around yourself so that fans remember you for years and years to come. And you know as well as me that, say, 20-30 years from now Undertaker, due to his gimmick, his WrestleMania streak and many other things will be more remembered than Savage. Savage was a great performer but there are more things about Taker that stand out than they did about Savage.

Doesnt help that Undertaker is still active, whereas the other pissed off the boss and has been swept under the rug though does it?

The feud with Hogan was more about Hogan than about Savage. It was all set around Hogan being betrayed by a friend. Still, that is about the only time that Savage can say that he was the central figure in the company. Even if Taker has zero, Savage still has only 1 dude. Furthermore, Taker trumps Savage in lot's of other things like longlevity, staying a maineventer for a longer period of time and uniqueness.

If Undertaker has been a Main Eventer for a longer period of time, how come his combined title runs dont come anywhere near that of Savage?

Just vote for Savage.

 

[SSJPhenom]

To Joaquin's cleft lip:

You saying that 'Taker was boring from bell to bell is an opinion based argument and a shitty one at best. I'll admit that he was boring in most of his matches in the early 90's but for you to say that he was even more boring after the early 90's shows how stupid you are sir. He didn't start really showing his versatility in the ring until around '96.

Also all of the wrestlers that you mentioned that 'Taker has lost to(Orton, Ken Anderson, etc); yes he's lost a singles match or two against them, but I can clearly remember him winning the overall feud against them. Him losing to those guys just goes to my point about 'Taker putting over more talent than Savage. Also, if you want to use a kayfabe argument then how about this one: 'Taker has beaten Hogan twice, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Ted Dibiase, Ultimate Warrior, and DDP. What do all of these guys have in common? They've all beaten Randy Savage before. So 'Taker would also beat Randy Savage.

By the late 90's the choking and hissing, as you put it, had pretty much went away and when he got into the ring with guys that weren't horrible gimmick wrestlers(I.E. Giant Gonzalez, Kamala) he put on great performances from bell to bell. Also, he had a great match with Austin for the WWF Title in the Summer of '97 and they had a good match at Summer Slam '98. Go back and watch these matches please and tell me what was bad about them. After you do that, tell me what you consider makes a good match.

I've said this before, it was when he started his feud with Foley in '96 that 'Taker really began to show what he could do in the ring. I never once said that Savage was a horrible in-ring performer and I never will. I mean, most of his stuff in WCW was god awful, but in his prime in the WWF/E, the man was golden in the ring. For you to make 'Taker out to be some sort of horrible in-ring competitor though, shows more of your stupidity than it does anyone else's.

Another example of your stupidity is in your above post you called Savage a better worker than Shawn Michaels:

So what this proves is, people of Savage's height and stature can beat Undertaker, cheers. Lets not forget that Shawn Michaels is heavily inspired by Savage, from the selling, to the elbow drop. If Michaels can beat Undertaker, a better worker like Savage can.

I rest my case.

 

[Davi323]

To Joaquin's cleft lip:
Another example of your stupidity is in your above post you called Savage a better worker than Shawn Michaels

Really? Calling Randy Savage a better worker than HBK is an example of stupidity? Really? When Savage was active in the WWF, he was easily the best "worker" on the WWF roster not named Ricky Steamboat. If Steamboat was #1, Savage was #1a. If you knew anything about Randy Savage's incredible career, about what he actually was able to do in the ring, you never would have mocked Joaquin's cleft lip for suggesting it.

Because if Randy Savage isn't better than HBK, it's so damn close that nobody would be stupid for suggesting it. If Joaquin had said that Jack Swagger was a better worker than HBK? Sure. It would be ridiculously stupid. But Randy Savage? Kid, it's time to brush up on wrestlers that were in their primes before you born, that way you wouldn't come across as such a total ignoramus. The only case rested by your mockery of Joaquin for claiming Savage was better than HBK is that you are a dumbass who knows jack shit about Randy Savage's career.