Semi-Finals: Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker

Discussion in 'General WrestleZone Tournament' started by klunderbunker, Jun 8, 2010.

?

Who Wins This Matchup?

  1. Shawn Michaels

  2. The Undertaker

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Born To Fly

    Born To Fly Occasional Pre-Show

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    31
    Undertaker's move set is far superior to HBK's that it's not even funny. Put them in a steel cage or a gimmick match and HBK would stand a chance. In a regular match, 'Taker would dominate.

    VOTE - UNDERTAKER
     
    #51
  2. TheOneBigWill

    TheOneBigWill [This Space for Rent]

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Just because the Undertaker would win in a one-on-one clean finish match.. doesn't mean he'd dominate.

    And what is Taker's moveset, that HBK hasn't overcome before? The typical big-man moveset? Big Boot, Chokeslam, Typical Power moves, Tombstone. He has shown that he can counter them if he needs to.. maybe not always, since he (HBK) typically also loses to the Tombstone - but he has shown he has the ability to counter them.

    So I wouldn't say Taker's moveset is so great that it shadows that of anything HBK can do. Just because I feel 100% that the Undertaker can win, doesn't mean he won't be in for a pure dogfight in this match.
     
    #52
  3. Remix

    Remix Is a thin rope

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103
    Likes Received:
    846
    No. Failing to attract a large crowd in his home town when booked to be the next WWE champion makes him a bad draw. Last I checked, WCW wasn't in the area that day.

    It probably has. Just like SHawn's ability nhas been overrated. He's good, but not the best ever.

    Now that you remind me, I do remember it. It was good. Probably better than anything 'Taker has ever spat out. They're supposed to be fighting though, not having a sternly worded debate. And didn't I admit that Taker's promos are identical?

    Last I checked, Angle was very charismatic and very strong on the mic. Benoit, granted.

    Most people think the first one was Shawn vs Ramon, or at least it's the earliest one seen by a lot of people. Unless you have the ladder match DVD or were at that particular house show, you won't have seen it. I'll freely admit to never have seen the match, but I expect that Shawn carried Ramon did most, if not all of the spots (having done a ladder match with Bret before, he actually knew the spots), and therefore gets top billing.

    And HiaC. And the casket match. Both matches Shawn would have lost were it not for Kane.

    Not as difficult as 'Taker's. Last I checked, lots of wrestlers have gotten over with gimmicks based on their looks.

    Anybody who agreed to take a bodyslam onto a solid, curved object and gets injured as a consiquence is an idiot. Shawn could (and probably should) have said 'Mark, don't bodyslam me onto a casket' and he'd have been fine. 'Taker deserves 75% of the blame for actually going it, but the rest goes to Shawn for agreeing to do it and not having the brains to stop it from happening.

    you're not this bad at debating are you? You've yet to make any valid points for why Shawn is definitively better than 'Taker and/or make a compelling case for him. Your original point was that Shawn's wins matter and 'Taker's dont, because they were at Wrestlemania. You've admitted that there is no material reason that anybody should vote for Shawn. So why the fuck should they? Use all of the opinion polls you like that make Shawn the better wrestler, and ignore the fact that Shawn has never been able to get it done against 'Taker. Ignore the fact that Shawn has a losing record in big match scenarios. Ignore the fact that Shawn's ability to finish superstars on his level quickly is minimal at best. Shawn should not win here. He simply should not. Shawn's retirement run at the top ends here Rebecca. Shawn's great, but he simply should not win here.

    And so that you can't make a point about me ignoring your actual point. I was reffereing to their annual time off after 'mania and not Shawn's initial retirement. The one where, for example he disappears until Hunter finds him working at a fast food joint until he quits and superkicks a child. Niether man here has a faultless record of appearing year round in their 40s.

    Because it's Wrestlemania, right? Why hasn't Shawn beaten Undertaker in their previous encounters without Kane? I mean Randy Orton lost to 'Taker at Wrestlemania and still beat him on other occasions. Hell, he even 'killed the Undertaker. What untainted victories has Shawn got?

    You can judge this based on whatever you want. I, along with most other people seem to be using kayfabe. You can use personal bias. Whatever floats your boat.

    If you ignore the cercumstances of the matches, it's 3-3 (including Rumbles). Where exactly is Shawn's winning record?

    you can moan about Wrestlemania, but I'm jous going to come straight back at you with Kane actually CAUSING 'Taker to lose - his losses had nothing to do with Shawn. See what I did there?

    You're right, you don't have to vote kayfabe. But people use it because it's the only objective way to compare two wrestlers. Want to talk about who's a better wrestler, you can look at their records, or you can use your opinions.

    Which are more factual Rebecca, opinions or records.

    Right, you're fighting from a platform built of opinion and bias. How could I forget.

    One of the first things you said about Shawn is that he's a better seller than 'Taker. He wasn't not going to kip up and superkick 'Taker after taking an unprotected steel chair shot to the head.

    I'm arguing with facts Rebecca, not opinions. Facts of a fixed sport are still facts.
     
    #53
    Big Nick Dudley likes this.
  4. Born To Fly

    Born To Fly Occasional Pre-Show

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    31
    'Taker has shown the ability to win by any number of ways. He can chokeslam somebody through the mat, slap on Hell's Gate, give them the Last Ride or send them to the grave with the Tombstone.

    You really never know how a 'Taker match is going to end, unless he's fighting HBK.

    If this is in the semifinals of a tournament too, 'Taker will bring out all the stops. Don't get me wrong. HBK is a talented wrestler as well with some high-flying spots and such, but he only has one true finisher.
     
    #54
  5. DirtyJosé

    DirtyJosé Best angle of all: retirement

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Kayfabe: HBK has done some serious shit, but Undertaker is the fucking Deadman.

    Performance: Ouch. Really close, but I'm gonna give this one to HBK. Undertaker took what would have been a career killing gimmick and made it work for 20 years, but HBK never stopped improving, and had much more depth as a character than Mark could give.

    Personal: In a real fight/match? Undertaker. My vote? Undertaker.
     
    #55
    Big Nick Dudley likes this.
  6. Big Sexy

    Big Sexy Deadly Rap Cannibal

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    789
    I voted for the Undertaker but seeing this statement I had to respond. At the Royal Rumble in 1997 in San Antonio headlined by HBK vs Sid, there were 60,525 people in attendance. That is the largest non-football crowd ever in the Alamodome

    Most WWE pay per views are held in smaller venues that hold 12,000-20,000 people. How you could possibly think the 97 Rumble was a small crowd is beyond me. It has been said that some tickets were given away for free but I've never seen a credible source for it. Even if they gave away like 15,000 tickets a crowd of around 50,000 is still more then double what pay per views usually do and is still a huge crowd.
     
    #56
    Big Nick Dudley likes this.
  7. Remix

    Remix Is a thin rope

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103
    Likes Received:
    846
    It was, undoubtedly a huge crowd. However, most of the people in attendence did not pay to attend. Because 'draw' refers to drawing money, if people were not willing to pay to see Shawn win the WWF title in his home town, it's a fairly safe bet that they weren't willing to pay to see him anywhere else either. That makes him a piss poor draw.
     
    #57
  8. LigerBomb

    LigerBomb Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    367
    Doing this for the sake of a write-in in case this goes to a tie. Not really looking for a debate as these reasons are soley my opinion and aren't meant to sway votes either way.

    IRL: Mark C. would probably beat the hell outta Michael H.
    Kayfabe: Taker has more (clean) wins, and has established a pattern/history of beating Michaels when and where it matters most i.e. WrestleMania.
    Entertainment Value: I gotten more enjoyment from an Undertaker entrance than entire HBK matches.
    Gimmicks: Invulnerable dead-man with magic powers was always cooler to me than a whiny narcissist, juvenile delinquent, or evangelical. Never cared for the American Bad-Ass though.
    Legacy: I had considered Undertaker to be a legend in the business long before WWE ever had to tell me he was; WWE, however, had to sell me on Shawn's, and I'm still not sure if I buy it.
    Bottom line, I voted undertaker
     
    #58
    Dmbfantomas and TheOneBigWill like this.
  9. JGlass

    JGlass Unregistered User

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    2,635
    Both these men are fantastic competitors who have their own unique set of strengths and abilities, and both are able to put on wildly entertaining matches, a point only further proven by the two matches they have had with each other.

    Going into Wrestlemania 25, I don't think anybody expected to get the classic that has become HBK vs. Undertaker, and I definitely didn't expect them to nearly duplicate their success in the second match.

    Those two matches had many things in common. Both were very entertaining, both featured numerous finishing attempts and in both matches both men pushed on when it seemed impossible. Of course, the biggest similarity is that in the end, The Undertaker stood victorious over Shawn Michaels.

    The third match will be no different. Shawn will put up all the fight he has in his body, but it will once again be no match for The Undertaker.
     
    #59
  10. Big Sexy

    Big Sexy Deadly Rap Cannibal

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    789
    1. I still have never seen a credible source saying that the giving away of free tickets even was true.

    2. From the things that have been said it was around 10,000-15,000 free tickets that were given away. So most people did pay. A 50,000 person paying crowd is still damn impressive especially at that time.
     
    #60
  11. simpsons_fanatic742

    simpsons_fanatic742 WZPC Intercontinental Champion

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    108
    Voted for The Undertaker. WrestleMania or not, Undertaker beat Michaels clean twice. Also, in the second match at WrestleMania, Shawn Michaels' career was on the line making it arguably the most important match in his career and he lost.

    Now that's obviously looking at it through a kayfabe perspective, which I think is the best way to judge since this is a wrestling tournament and wrestling is, well, scripted. Judging this match on who was the better draw or the better gimmick doesn't really accomplish anything. So what if the character is better, does that automatically equal win? Of course not.

    We've seen these men wrestle before and when the stakes are high and it's a regular one-on-one match, The Undertaker has come out on top and in the end that should be the deciding factor in this matchup.
     
    #61
  12. Hulkamaniac

    Hulkamaniac Vote Hogan, Savage, Rocky and Thesz

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    99
    Believe what you want about the crowd at the Royal Rumble in 197, but it's pretty well-known how heavily papered the event was. But it's indisputable that Wrestlemania 13, Shawn's first as champion, it became the first (and only?) Wrestlemania to not sell out it's venue, and it is also the first (again, only?) Mania to not be the most watched PPV of the year. It may also still be the lowest bought Mania of all time, I don't have the figures in front of me, but it did something terrible like 240,000. Shawn is the champ, he's the one who's responsible.
     
    #62
  13. TheOneBigWill

    TheOneBigWill [This Space for Rent]

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Uhm, are you on something?

    Wrestlemania 13 may of been all that stuff.. but.. :lmao: Shawn Michaels wasn't the Champion then. He gave up the title, it went to Sid Vicious, who defended against.. .. .. Undertaker. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

    SO if the event was so heavily bad, and one of the worst in history - it would've been due to the fact that no one wanted to see The Undertaker in the Championship match against Sid. As the only thing Shawn Michaels did at that event, was commentary for the Main Event. He didn't even wrestle.

    Dude, quit coming up with crap thats gonna accidentally hurt the Undertaker's chances at winning. LOL
     
    #63
    jmt225 likes this.
  14. ted sheckler

    ted sheckler Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    21
    Oh no.... you swung the chair hard at Shawn heads but hit the Undertaker!! haha.

    As someone already mentioned Shawn was not the champion nor even wrestling at Wrestlemania 13. But you were correct in saying it was the lowest bought Wrestlemania ever and a piss poor attendance. But by your logic that can be placed on Sid vs TAKER and Bret vs Austin failing to draw... Actually HBK vs Diesel did a 1.3 and Bret vs HBK did 1.2 HBK vs Austin did 2.3... WM13 that they did without him did .77 ...

    As far as the Rumble 97 they had over 60,000 people in attendance.. The reason Bret Hart said its one of the most papered events ever was because the place holds up to 75,000 for a center stage concert. SO thats 15,000 seats papered. But that doesn't take away the fact that 60K is a HUGE crowd. WWF hadn't worked in front of a crowd that large since Summerslam 92 a whole 4 years before.

    There are lots of thing to bash the guy for but when he deserved some credit be man enough to give it to him..even if he's not your favorite.
     
    #64
  15. Hulkamaniac

    Hulkamaniac Vote Hogan, Savage, Rocky and Thesz

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    99
    Apologies for being an idiot. Yes, Shawn Michaels wasn't involved at Wrestlemania 13. It's not an indictment of the Pro-Undertaker arguments, though, since nobody is arguing he was much of a draw. So, while my post was inarguably really bad and dumb and poorly researched, still vote for the Undertaker despite my terribleness. He's just the better professional wrestler, and kayfabe is borderline inarguable, unless you want to argue that Kane would interfere for no reason (since he has no reason to interfere here, and we're not traveling thru time to have these matches.) Vote Undertaker.
     
    #65
    ted sheckler likes this.
  16. shattered dreams

    shattered dreams Hexagonal Hedonist

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    975
    Quite anticlimactic for the semifinals. How much more awesome would Taker-Sting have been than this borderline obvious outcome? It is not even much fun to discuss. What might be fun to discuss since the deadman already basically has this won is who would win if we went back in time before wrestlemania 25 happened and the two faced of at a ppv that was not a "wrestlemania."
     
    #66
  17. Teddy Irving

    Teddy Irving Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    28
    This is where some people are coming from, back in there primes hbk beat taker 3 times(yes i know about interferences but they are wins. Kayfabe involves these as part of a storyline.) So as far as I can see these wins mean just as much as takers wins at both the mania's. You can argue about hbks career being on the line at this years mania but that was just a none kayfabe decision worked into kayfabe.
    The last one of these i was into was Austin v Jericho and everybody was using the back in his prime arguement, well back in taker and hbks primes who came out top? HBK did thats who, forget the fact they werent clean wins they were wins.
    At a ppv that wasnt wrestlemania would taker have won both of these matchs? It can be debated that yes he would win and no he would lose, fact is we wont know. I feel that the better in-ring preformer is hbk and i have always prefared his promos to takers. Although with in ring work Taker was not to shabby back in his day. And i know recently doesnt count but as for takers ability in the ring in the last few years i just havent thought he was any good other than at mania with michaels. Where i feel that hbk hasn't lost a step and still had a few years left in him and i feel taker should have retired after the first mania match with michaels if not earlier.
     
    #67
  18. TheOneBigWill

    TheOneBigWill [This Space for Rent]

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    And yet if you look closely in those matches, the Undertaker had every single one of them - won. Until a random number of individuals, or individual with equally dominating powers, showed up to help Shawn Michaels out.

    If that happens here, HBK would be DQ'd and the Undertaker would still advance. So, the way I see it - the Undertaker would have won all of those other matches, barring interference that just so happened to always be allowed when Shawn won.. and in the matches interference wasn't allowed, he lost.

    But they aren't. A victory at the first-ever 3-hour In Your House isn't the same as a victory at the 25th anniversary of Wrestlemania. The stages are slightly different.

    A victory in a gimmick match, at the Royal Rumble isn't the same as a Stipulation match on the biggest stage in Wrestling history.

    But, I suppose if you wanted to feel better.. you could probably find some Monday Night Raw, or Friday Night Smackdown matches that were thrown out to toss in as being similar and equally as important.

    So then don't look at this year's Mania victory.. instead, check out the one the year prior - when the Undertaker had everything to lose, and Shawn had nothing to lose.

    Does this mean the Undertaker, in high pressure situations, is more stable and in control, than that of Shawn Michaels?

    I doubt anyone would disagree that they were indeed wins.

    UNfortunately I don't think you're gonna be able to convince anyone else, with the exception of HBK fans not willing to view this match any other way, how Shawn could possibly win against the Undertaker without the help of gimmicks, and/or outside interference.. when the Undertaker's proven every time no outside situations occur, he has always came out on top.

    So lets call it a tie, and sub Edge into the Finals.. wat'du'ya'say?

    And the reason.. for this.. .. is.. why, again?

    Oh, maybe because he flies around the ring? Mayb.. wait, no, Taker does that.

    Well, HBK does do that nip up thing when he seems beaten.. well, shit, no, Taker has that sit up thing.

    OH! Well, HBK does show great resilience against bigger opponen.. but Taker's shown the ability to adapt to any style and still dominate.. so it can't be that.

    Okay, you got me.. I'm stumped.

    I quite liked the one where HBK gave up his Championship and didn't wanna defend it at Wrestlemania 13, because he lost his smile. LAWLZ, you can buy those things at any Walmart ya know. I think there was a deeper reason. :shrug:

    So.. you're considering re-thinking your choice I see. Good idea.

    Sooooo... .. what you're saying.. is Shawn's only weakness, Taker's only strength, is when they face each other and Taker wins.

    I see.. and this proves HBK should win again.. .. how?

    And yet Michael Hickenbottom is making 3 alts. as I type this, in an assertive effort to make sure he doesn't lose by a blow-out.. all because being a House Husband who's currently unemployed gives a person a ton of free time.

    In the end.. vote for who you want. But there isn't really any LOGICAL argument thats going to show HBK as being the guy who should win this particular match-up.
     
    #68
  19. Teddy Irving

    Teddy Irving Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    28
    That may be the case but michaels won the matchs. Interference or not the matchs were won by michaels. Michaels in his prime was a heel and so winning by interference was always something he was happy to do.

    He would only be DQ'd if he was caught actually which doesn't always happen. Undertaker may have won all those matchs if people hadn't interfered but prove to me that he would have.


    The stages may be different but michaels didnt have a streak to defend that vince was going to keep going because it gets people interested in whether or not it will end, and so make him money.

    The matchs are equally important because they show that michaels can beat taker, albiet with interference. Just because they aren't held at mania, where takers streak will defend him, doesn't mean the matchs don't mean anything.


    Vince is going to hold that streak until he finds a young up and coming star to boost up very fast by ending it or he may never end it at all. High pressure situations, try the montreal screwjob making sure that bret didnt get wind of it and that they had a good match up until then, knowing that this swerve was going to give him a terrible name, which he worked back from.



    He doesn't have to win without interference, like i said if he isnt caught then its all legal as far as the ref is concerned. Outside of Mania michaels may have won those matchs, because they were held at mania and vince wanted the streak to continue vince was always going to have taker win.

    My point here was that outside Mania would taker have won those matchs or not? Without his streak that vince was going to keep going michaels may have won.



    The reason for this is i have always found michaels matchs more entertaining that taker ones. Michaels may oversell which when he isn't taking the piss(hogan for example) makes his opponent look strong. Where taker no sells and although that works at times and makes him look strong it makes his opponent look weak.



    The reason behind the promo isn't what i was arguing at all so i dont see why you brought it up at all. As for the promo itself it was memorable and showed how good michaels is on the mic. Michaels promos were also more diverse than takers, where michaels can be comedic, serious, emotional, and make it appear like he is losing his mind(the promos leading up to this years mania). All of takers promos are the same and i find them all quite boring to be honest.

    I wont be changing my vote as i feel michaels is better than undertaker.


    What i was saying is that in the last few years Taker has lost it. Look at his matchs with Punk they were terrible. Whereas shawns matchs were just as good if not better as time went on. I was saying that taker has had 2 good matchs in the last 2 years and they were with michaels at mania(where yes he won but again it was for the sake of the streak). Was this because Shawn is such a great wrestler that he was able to drag two great matchs out of taker?

    The only arguement people have for taker winning is that he won cleanly twice at Mania. Where he is going to win until vince decieds to end the streak to shoot somebody into stardom. Michaels improved over time where taker went downhill.
     
    #69
  20. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    938
    For the sake of this, I'm going to compare Undertaker's and HBK's matches year-by-year from 2005-2009

    2005 HBK: He had good matches against Angle and an awful match against Hogan. That was basically it for him.

    2005 Undertaker: Great WM match against Orton and had some more good ones with him in their year-long feud which really built Orton back up from the previous year.

    2006 HBK: I have nothing. Most of his matches were against male cheerleaders and non-wrestlers

    2006 Undertaker: No Way Out vs. Angle could arguably go down as one of the best matches he has ever had. Made Khali look dominant and feuded with Mr. Kennedy

    2007 HBK: Great matches with Cena and average ones with Orton

    2007 Undertaker: Great matches with Batista

    2008 HBK: Good matches with Jericho.

    2008 Undertaker: Good matches with Edge. I liked their WM 24 match more than any of the Jericho/HBK matches.

    2009 HBK: Good matches with Legacy and that match with the Undertaker which he lost

    2009 Undertaker: Beat HBK at WM. His matches with Punk weren't that good but he was heavyweight champion for the last third of the month.

    The only year where HBK could have a slight advantage over Undertaker is 2009 and even then, Undertaker was champion. I know I would hear that HBK didn't want to be champion but I've never heard Undertaker say that he wants to be champion.

    Undertaker was having more great matches for the past five years moreso than HBK. Four months after feuding with Taker, Orton was fighting for the WHC at WM. One month after feuding with Taker, Mr. Kennedy was fighting for the WHC against Batista and did pretty good.

    Royal Rumble 2007: Final two were HBK and Undertaker. The Undertaker won in Shawn Michael's hometown. I rest my case.
     
    #70
  21. TheOneBigWill

    TheOneBigWill [This Space for Rent]

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Ah, how I loved that argument. Never worked, but I tried to push it all the time never-the-less.

    Here's the deal, short and sweet. (Unless altered or changed) It has been said since the First Round in this tournament - any type of outside inteference "does not happen".

    Why? I have no clue. I would assume its because they're basing one Superstar's true abilities against another's, without the influence of outside events altering the outcome. Or, you know, to screw with the heels of the tournament.

    Okay.. in the Hell in a Cell match, if I recall he actually HAD Shawn Michaels knocked out by a chair shot. He was then calling for the Tombstone when the lights went out, Kane appeared, the official was laid out, Kane Tombstoned Taker and HBK crawled out of a pool of his own blood - to barely make the one arm over the chest cover as it was.

    If by this logic everything re-happens to help HBK win.. the official would have to be laid out. (DQ)As well as Kane, who would have to interfere. (Any outside individuals are barred from ringside.)

    In the next match.. at the Royal Rumble, which was a Casket match. The Undertaker had Shawn Michaels laid out, with a Tombstone, directly INTO the Casket. At this point, the official was once again laid out and not 1, not 2, not even 4, but the combination of.. Triple H, the Outlaws, and Savio Vega's group ALL attacked the Undertaker.. but wait, there's more. Kane once again had to be the end result, in helping make sure Taker was put away.

    So, again by this logic everything re-happens to help HBK win.. the official would have to once again be laid out. (DQ) As well as Kane, Triple H, the Outlaws and a whole host of possibly illegal immigrants would have to interfere. (Any outside individuals are barred from ringside.)

    So your entire argument is now that the Undertaker only won, due to his Undefeated streak.. which won't be a factor, since this tournament isn't happening at Mania. Fair enough.

    How about YOU, prove to me, how Shawn Michaels can defeat the Undertaker WITHOUT the aid of any outside interference.

    You want to believe Mania is the only reason why HBK would ever lose. And yet the match, was still a match - that Taker won cleanly. Twice. On the opposite end, HBK has never beaten Taker (to my knowledge) cleanly. Which is what would be a need-to-happen thing.

    Well, they would be equally important if it wasn't for the fact that the Undertaker had him beaten in the "non-Mania" matches just the same.. with the exception of that darned interference.

    And once again, I'm found waiting for an explanation on how HBK can/will beat Taker cleanly.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Okay, this is great. So now we're going to toss in the fact that Shawn Michaels could feasibly, ONLY, win.. if the Undertaker is under the assumption he's going to win, and Shawn Michaels locks in a submission move just to have the bell randomly ring, the announcer proclaim him victory, and a whole host of other events to unfold suddenly.

    Once again proving, that even You, yourself, are in agreement that Shawn Michaels can not win this match - without some universal type of huge help.

    May have. Could have. What if. Didn't.

    We aren't dealing in "what if's", when there is solid proof that in a clean one-on-one meeting.. one man always wins. And one man.. always loses.

    No. I proved above that Taker had both matches won, and the inteference proved to be the difference maker.

    Uhm, yeah.. Taker's opponents were suppose to look weak in comparison.. because they were!

    And on the opposite side, Shawn has been considered more of an "underdog" in size comparable to most Main Event guys.. so, in turn, he's suppose to make his opponents look stronger and better.

    Its called character. The Undertaker clearly knew his. Michaels kept searching to understand & figure his out.

    And you certainly are entitled to think that. As I think the opposite, and am by far and away more of a Shawn Michaels fan than I will EVER be an Undertaker fan.

    In honest. Undertaker is nothing more than a pathetic fake gimmick with legs. I can't stand how people fawn over the guy.

    However, in this tournament - right now - I'm voting for who is clearly the better pick. Unfortunately, its Taker.

    Are. You. Kidding. Me?!

    There isn't even a logical way for me to tell you how wrong you are.

    Simply put, it takes two individuals (or more) to put together a great match. It seems like someone else has also given you plenty to work with on matches between the two. (Little Jerry Lawler)

    :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

    Yes, forbid that someone shows full-on 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, realistic proof.. that one of the individuals has CLEANLY defeated the other, TWICE! On the biggest show of their Company's schedule.
     
    #71
  22. Teddy Irving

    Teddy Irving Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    28
    OK so you are a hypocrit i get that. Want me to explain why? Heres why because when people used the arguement during Austin v Jericho that jericho lost to younger talents to move them up the ladder you laughed at this and said it had nothing to do with this tournament but now when you can use that arguement its a valid one. You pick and choose the details that are relevant.
    Again its when the men are in their prime which was your arguement that austin could beat jericho in his prime 2005 onwards was neither of these mens primes. Hypocracy again! Takers title reign was given to him to take the belt off cm punk because he didnt want to wear a suit and when taker confronted him about it he didnt back down. So they made him lose the title to taker because taker went to vince and used his backstage power to gain the title. Just because he held the title more recently than hbk doesnt make him a better wrestler.
    Against angle i enjoyed hbks matchs more than undertakers.
    The hbk/dx against cheerleaders was the storyline he was given not his fault but they made it entertaining and made it work.
    your 2007 arguement has hbk doing more noticible matchs than taker.
    I highly enjoyed the whole jericho michaels fued although the edge taker one was good aswell,but didnt that fued end with undertaker leaving for a month or 2.
     
    #72
  23. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    938
    Taker from 2005-2010 has been better than any of his previous 15 years give or take one or two. Undertaker has been better as he has gotten older and his matches prove it.

    The DX/Spirit Squad feud was boring and went on too long. You had five against two and HHH and HBK dominated the whole time.

    The Edge/Taker feud didn't end with Undertaker leaving for a month or two. He did leave before having that HIAC match with Edge so you're wrong on that one as he feuded with the Big Show after that.

    During the Michaels/Jericho feud, didn't Michaels not wrestle for a couple of months? His wife got punched in the face at Summerslam and HBK didn't compete at Unforgiven if my memory serves correct.

    If you're going to call me a hypocrite, please spell it correctly next time.
     
    #73
  24. Teddy Irving

    Teddy Irving Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ok I didnt read round one of the tournament didnt know that interferences for some reason couldnt happen. Thank you for informing me of this.

    So he not only need the cell but a chair to lay michaels out then? I have watched that match and yes it looked like taker had it won until Kane came in but this was how they decided to introduce Kane. So would they have had the match go this way if Kane was never going to come in.

    This was how vince wanted this match to go to make taker look stronger and it worked in very well with michaels heel dx run. Again without these interferences vince wanted michaels to win so had they not been there michaels would have won some other way.


    That is not my arguement i was just sick of people bringing up those 2 wins that taker has at mania because they were clean but discrediting michaels wins because they involved interferences, but that all tied into 1. introducing Kane and 2. building heat for hbk and dx. If people want to discredit michaels wins then i will discredit takers wins because they were at mania.

    How about you prove to me how taker can beat michaels outside of wrestlemania.
    You want to believe interference is the only reason why taker would ever lose.And yet the match,was still a match- that HBK won. Three times. To my knowledge taker hasn't beaten michaels outside of mania. Which is what would be a need-to-happen thing. And yes thats your arguement changed to suit mine lol.

    No you clearly missed my point, maybe i didnt make it obvious enough. My point was that being involved in the swerve was a high pressure situation and michaels didnt sweat it at all. You asked me to show how Hbk handles high pressure situations and that was my example.


    At mania.


    And some people(not saying you) use that against michaels and use takers no sell as a positive for him. But like you have just said this is the way they have to do things. Just because taker no sells doesnt mean michaels couldnt beat him because thats what he had to do with other larger opponents. Michaels has shown that just because the other guy is bigger and "tougher" than him doesn't mean they are going to win.



    Michaels changed his so that his characters wouldnt grow stale. The comedic one was used for his dx days because that was there thing being immature jokers. The one where he seemed to be losing his mind was to build up him v taker for the 2nd mania can't fault him for that.



    Undertaker seems the better pick because he won the last two matchs these two had which were at mania.



    My point was that Michaels matchs in the last 2 years have all been good where takers have gone downhill(if you don't include his mania matchs). I know it takes two individuals to put on a good match but it seems that taker was only able to put on good ones when he was paired with michaels(in the last 2 years), where michaels was putting on good matchs without taker.


    The biggest show being mania which i have already made my points about.
     
    #74
  25. Teddy Irving

    Teddy Irving Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    28
    His Punk matchs prove differently.
    The dx/spirit squad fued went on a bit long but as for HHH and HBK dominating obviously that was going to happen the whole point was that they were cheerleaders not wrestlers.
    Undertaker got banished if memory serves correctly? Which i get isn't the end of the fued that HiaC was but that was what i was refering to.
    Undertaker doesnt wrestle in a lot of his fueds the lights just go out and the person he is fueding with is on the floor with him standing over them.
    Sorry i spelt it wrong still doesnt stop you being one though.
     
    #75

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"