The Who's Better Poll #5

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Ok last was also a squash, this one is between HBK and The Undertaker. Here are their stats.

HBK:
3X WWE Champion
1X World Heavyweight Champion
3X Intercontinental Champion
4X World Tag Team Champion
1X European Champion

The Undertaker:
4X WWE Champion
6X World Tag Team Champion
1X Hardcore Champion
2X World Heavyweight Champion
Undefeated at Wrestlemania

These men are pretty much even but I have to pick who is better. In this case however I'm going to go with Shawn Michaels. He has been around longer and has comeback from a career threatening back injury that kept him on the shelf for 4 years. Even once he came back, he proved his dominance by winning both the tag team titles and the world title, and engaging in a great feud with Triple H. The Undertaker is great, but he just doesnt carry a match as well as HBK.
Mods, can you please add a poll to this since I forgot too, thnks

 

[StInGeR-HBK]

I'm gonna have to go with Shawn Michaels on this one. I think he's the better wrestler, better athlete and has more charisma than the Undertaker. Plus as previously mentioned, he came back from a career ending injury and came back performing just as good if not better than before. This guy can go and can still hang with the best of em. So my vote goes for Shawn.

 

[Stormtrooper]

This one, for me, is extremely easy. As much as I love The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels wins this one in a landslide.

Within 1 year of his debut, The Undertaker defeated Hulk Hogan for the WWE title. However, his reign lasted only a few days, before he gave it back to Hogan, and he never tasted ANY gold for another 6 and a half years. During this time, I do not recall him being anywhere near the Main Event on a consistent basis. His WrestleMania Matches between the title reigns were against Jake Roberts, Giant Gonzalez, King Kong Bundy, and Diesel, and he was left off the card for WrestleMania VIII. He also was not considered a very good worker during this time, which was why he wasn't in the Main Event/Title picture. After regaining the title in 1997, he got it back in 1999, and then 2002, and he has been a Main Eventer and a good worker ever since, winning the 2007 Royal Rumble and 2 World Championships (1 in 2007, 1 in 2008)

When The Rockers came to WWE, they were arguably one of the most popular Tag Teams in quite possibly the strongest Tag Team division in WWE history (oh how I miss those days). When Shawn Michaels became a singles wrestler, he really didn't stumble, winning the Intercontinental Championship, and stealing the show numerous times at big events (i.e. WrestleMania X, where he wrestled a Ladder). He was 1/2 of quite possibly the greatest wrestling match of the 1990's (WrestleMania XII vs. Bret Hart). After winning Back-to-back Royal Rumbles, he won the title at WrestleMania XII. When he won the belt, he immediately became the backbone of the company, and carried the company for the next 24 months, being the Main Event with or without the title. At Royal Rumble 98, HBK broke his back (ironically again against Taker), and he "retired" at WrestleMania XIV, putting over Stone Cold Steve Austin (how he was able to wrestle with a broken back is beyond me). After being away for 4 years and 5 months, he had a "1 night only" return against Triple H, and if you didn't know he was out of action 4.5 years, you couldn't figure it out by watching the match, because he was as good, if not better then he was in the late 90's. In November, he won the World Title, and after losing it the next month, went on to steal the show (did you expect anything else from him, really?) at WrestleMania vs. Chris Jericho. Since then, he has returned full-time, and he has been in the Main Event picture (granted he hasn't won the title again) the entire time. He also has put on phenomenal bouts with the likes of Chris Jericho, John Cena, Triple H, a 60 year old Ric Flair, a 60 year old Mr. McMahon, and a 50+ year old Hulk Hogan, as well as anybody else (he could probably have a phenomenal match with a pile of monkey crap).

Undertaker advantages over HBK:
Longevity without extended hiatuses: Taker has taken time off, but never for longer then a year, while HBK missed 4.5 years.
Ability to adapt character: Undertaker became a biker for 5 years, while Shawn Michaels never really changed his character drastically (he has had subtle changes, such as no longer being an obnoxious prick on TV)

HBK advantages over Undertaker:
Quality of work: The Undertaker, while getting better in the ring, cannot hold a candle to Shawn Michaels as an in-ring worker.
Ability to Steal the Show: Has anybody ever said "wow, The Undertaker really stole the show tonight?" I don't think so. Has anybody ever said "wow, HBK was not good tonight?" No they haven't, because they can't, since HBK never seems to have a bad night (his version of a bad day if he has them is considered a good day for most workers).
Ability to carry the company: HBK carried the company on his back single handedly for 2 years (which made him breaking his back literally rather ironic). Undertaker has never done that.


Both of Undertakers advantages are not really that drastic (Taker has probably missed around a total of 3 years because of injuries, and HBK never really needed a drastic change of character). Meanwhile, HBK's 3 advantages all equate to being better then Undertaker. Thats why it isn't even close, the answe HAS TO BE

THE HEARTBREAK KID, SHAWN MICHAELS

ps: as I said before, I love the Undertaker, and this isn't a knock on him. Taker got an impossible draw in my opinion here, because I don't think anybody is better then HBK.

 

[TheIconHBK]

i love the undertaker especially during the ministry days wasn't so keen on the American bad ass time
but Shawn wins. Is a way better worker and can make absolutely anyone look good has had better matches and feuds and can wrestle any style of match

 

[Tino571]

I gotta vote for the Undertaker. He was never hated by everyone backstage like HBK was and is the top leader in the locker room. Taker also doesn't refuse to be world champ like Michaels does, and never had a problem putting anyone over (Kozlov, Khali, Lesnar). HBK's also put some guys over but not to the level that Taker has. Taker's done so many things with his character whereas HBK has only done the Rockers gimmick, the sexy boy/DX heel/DX goofball after becoming born-again Christian. I also feel Taker's a better wrestler then HBK, being able to do so much at his size like soaring over the top rope, and re-inventing his style into an MMA-type. Every Michaels match in the past couple years is the same thing, Shawn gets beat up, hits the flying forearm, atomic drop, body slam, elbow drop, sweet chin music. This shouldn't be a landslide by any means like all these HBK lovers say.

 

[Slam Master]

Shawn Michaels...In the words or Jim Ross- "hands down, case closed."

Not knocking the Undertaker, but Shawn's famous matches have way more pizazz and excitement then the Undertaker. He makes his oppenents look great and doesn't need to be the dominating guy. He carried the company while everybody in the locker room hated him, he had Bret Hart on his bad side politicking with the locker room against him. (besides a few people) and has come back from two career-threatening injuries (knee and back). Shawn has wrestled and stole the show with the best in the business:

Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Razor, Diesel, Steve Austin, Undertaker, The British Bulldog, Mick Foley, Hogan,... I could keep going...

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

HBK has been one of the most overrated wrestlers in the past decade. He can put on the occasional good match every now and then, but most of the time he doesn't. He was one of the worst drawing champions of all time and hasn't really done anything to revolutionize the business or impact it in any way. He may be one of the best performers of all-time but he is past his prime now.

Undertaker was brought in to basically be the next Andre, and he surpassed everything Andre did and more. Sure his matches were slow in the beginning, but they became better as the years went by and his style slowly evolved to what it is now. Undertaker has performed more great matches recently than HBK and has been an better performer these last few years. Both have never been big draws in the WWE, but I will take Undertaker over HBK.

 

[t-BEAST]

They both are Iconsss in the biz but i perfer HBK because 2me he is a great performer that puts on the best matches on the card with any superstar on the roster! not saying the deadman never had a great match but i just perfer HBK More

 

[Jack-Hammer]

On the surface, it looks like a lock for Shawn. Overall, Shawn is a better athlete and has been put into more high quality matches by creative than the Undertaker. As a result, I'd say that HBK has been put into feuds of more general prestige than the Undertaker.

However, few men in WWE history have, at times, been given less than the Undertaker in terms of feuds and expected to make good. I can't help but be impressed at Taker's ability to almost always take the sow's ear that creative has handed him into a silk purse. There have been times he's been in the ring with really awful workers, but he's still managed to make fans care about seeing him against those workers.

HBK is great on the stick, overall better than Taker I'd say, but then again Taker has never needed to be on the mic to get over. In terms of drawing ability, I'd have to put it at a tie. Both are good draws, but they've never set the industry in fire with numbers.

Who is the best in-ring worker overall, well I personally think it's too close to call. On the surface, it looks as though Michaels would win that but he's also been put in with a higher caliber of performer throughout most of his career. It's really only been within the past 12 or 13 years that Taker has been given opportunities to really show his stuff with guys that are actually half way decent within the ring. Prior to that, he'd be tossed in When Taker is in there with a quality opponent, he puts on high quality matches.

As to who has the most respect, I think Taker wins hands down. You never hear negative stories about the guy backstage, his work ethic is pretty much second to none, he doesn't do much, if any, politicing. HBK is rather infamous for his antics behind the scenes during the 90s. Like Triple H, HBK was a major politician and his part in the Montreal Screwjob certainly didn't do much to win him respect. Granted, he's a born again Christian and has put a LOT of stuff behind him, but fans and insiders alike have long memories.

I can't blame anyone at all for giving the nod to HBK, but I'm going with Taker in this one.

 

[patdsez]

How many championships one wins while an active pro wrestler shouldn't mean much - the title is a prop. Undertaker is THE single most successful gimmick in wrestling. It's the only gimmick that has managed to last as long as it has even as it;s gone through drastic changes, it's returned as over as it ever was. I love Michaels. He's a pantheon performer. One of the great in ring guys of all time...so he still wins. But give Taker his due as this is not a landslide for Shawn.

 

[Mr. Truth]

Both have had pretty much the same gimmick their entire time in the WWE. Both men have held the major titles. But, Taker has The Streak. No other person will ever touch The Streak. Wrestlemania is the WWE's SuperBowl, so you can equate winning there the wrestling equivalent of winning the SuperBowl. No one has done that more often then Taker, and that's why he gets my vote over HBK.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

I think there is only one way to settle these type of "Who's Better" Polls... pit the two individual's in a match against each other at the grandest stage of them all "WrestleMania" & then we will... oh wait...

...

...God dammit... gotta actually analyse this now. Such a great match up that I never would of thunk of comparing HBK & Taker as it is just too hard to pick one wrestler over the other. Let's go for it mate, but before I do... nice comparison for the 5th Thread Anniversary of the "Who's Better" Polls...

It is the "Heartbreak Kid... the Showstopper... Mr. Wrestlemania" himself Shawn Michaels squaring off against the "Phenom... the Deadman" The Undertaker.

Well, for all the accollades these men would accomplish... I think I would be here for a long time explaining them. After considering the ones listed, the RR wins, the undefeated streak, HBK being an innovator of matches, etc, etc. It is pretty much even.

Come to think of it, it is pretty even for both men. You have one guy who can arguably be the best big man WWE has ever seen that for the most part of his career has donned a gimmick from the dark arts area who buries people & actually managed to survive through many generational tranisitions. He is still using the Undertaker gimmick in a PG era? This guy has also had to put up with some of the weirdest & stupidest match-ups in history like the Giant Gonzalez whilst still performing to his absolute best.

One the other hand, you have a man who started off as a part of the infamous tag team 'The Rockers' whom were the next generation of superstars to bring in a new style of wrestling that would eventually evolve into the modern wrestling era. HBK was responsible for many classic match ups with the likes of Bret Hart & Razor Ramon. HBK formed DX, one of the greatest wrestling stables ever. He even battle a career-threatening injury & is now become better than ever in the wrestling world.

After careful consideration, my vote has gone to none other than Shawn Michaels. There is only one reason... matches & fueds. Look into the history of both of these men & you will utterly cream your pants at what these guys have done... but it seems Shawn Michaels will have the more memorable matches & fueds over Taker. Dont get me wrong, The Undertaker is probably one of the best wrestlers to step foot in the WWE ring & hadn't he been thrown all the garbage Vince has given him over the years with the opponents of Big Show, Mark Henry & such... he would be on equal par with HBK.

By making a simple list of the greatest matches & greatest fueds these guys have had excluding the matches these two men have had with each other... HBK will earn more listings.

Sorry Taker... but its HBK. History & VKM was just not on your side today.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I will have to go with Shawn Michaels on this one and I don't think I have to explain why, you have all done that well enough for me. I didn't really notice if anyone mentioned the fact that Shawn Michaels is the only Grand Slam Champion as well, he held all the company gold at one time. Also he can lay claim to one of the most controversial Royal Rumble finishes of all time when he flew over the rope, and one one foot touched the ground, then he went back in the ring as the British Bulldog was celebrating on the turnbuckle and knocked him off of it down to the floor winning the Royal Rumble. Those were just a couple of things I thought were worth mentioning.

As I said I don't need to explain why I pick Shawn Michael you have all done that well enough for me. However, I must explain why I do not pick the Undertaker.

Undertaker, with his wrestlemania streak, multiple title reigns, awesome ability for his size, work ethic, and so on is more of an attraction than a wrestler. A good comparison would be Andre the Giant. People didn't go to see his amazing in-ring ability, they went to see a guy who was 7' 5" and seemingly unstoppable, much like people come to see the "Dead Man" who is also seemingly unstoppable. He also has a big gimmick with the Wrestlemania streak every year. That creates interest without him having to do anything until he finally defends his streak.

There is another big reason I can't bring myself to pick the Undertaker. I recently read Bret Hart's book "My Real Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling" It was a great book to say the least, and in it he made mention of something about the Undertaker when he first came to WWF. He was talking about how Vince was really excited with this new guy he had just picked up named Mark Callaway who had been wrestling in WCW as Mark Callous. He was talking about how Vince and the creative team had come up with the idea of him being the Undertaker, a zombie like monster who seemingly couldn't be defeated. Bret goes on to talk about how over Vince wanted this guy to be, he had big plans for this character, and he wanted everybody to work work work for this guy. Apparently Vince was so hell-bent on this idea, and wanted people to put this guy so over he told them "When I say I want this guy over, I mean his feet don't leave the ground" Meaning he wouldn't be taking any bumps, wouldn't be selling for anyone, and would basically be squashing all of his opponents without mercy. That to me gave him a big push that he had not earned yet, and he was put over everyone like that, even Hogan.

Shawn Michaels on the other hand, worked his way to the top, and earned every inch, night in and night out. No one ever put him over that huge, and he was able to impress crowds with his own ability, not the appearance of ability due to the work of other wrestlers. He never just squashed guys like that, and always gave people 5 star matches whether he was or wasn't going over. So, in essence the Undertaker, like Hogan before him, was 50% media creation in a sense. He just got to go over everyone he faced from day one, before he ever earned the push, which is most of the reason for his success throughout his career.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I will have to go with Shawn Michaels on this one and I don't think I have to explain why, you have all done that well enough for me. I didn't really notice if anyone mentioned the fact that Shawn Michaels is the only Grand Slam Champion as well, he held all the company gold at one time. Also he can lay claim to one of the most controversial Royal Rumble finishes of all time when he flew over the rope, and one one foot touched the ground, then he went back in the ring as the British Bulldog was celebrating on the turnbuckle and knocked him off of it down to the floor winning the Royal Rumble. Those were just a couple of things I thought were worth mentioning.

As I said I don't need to explain why I pick Shawn Michael you have all done that well enough for me. However, I must explain why I do not pick the Undertaker.

Undertaker, with his wrestlemania streak, multiple title reigns, awesome ability for his size, work ethic, and so on is more of an attraction than a wrestler. A good comparison would be Andre the Giant. People didn't go to see his amazing in-ring ability, they went to see a guy who was 7' 5" and seemingly unstoppable, much like people come to see the "Dead Man" who is also seemingly unstoppable. He also has a big gimmick with the Wrestlemania streak every year. That creates interest without him having to do anything until he finally defends his streak.

There is another big reason I can't bring myself to pick the Undertaker. I recently read Bret Hart's book "My Real Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling" It was a great book to say the least, and in it he made mention of something about the Undertaker when he first came to WWF. He was talking about how Vince was really excited with this new guy he had just picked up named Mark Callaway who had been wrestling in WCW as Mark Callous. He was talking about how Vince and the creative team had come up with the idea of him being the Undertaker, a zombie like monster who seemingly couldn't be defeated. Bret goes on to talk about how over Vince wanted this guy to be, he had big plans for this character, and he wanted everybody to work work work for this guy. Apparently Vince was so hell-bent on this idea, and wanted people to put this guy so over he told them "When I say I want this guy over, I mean his feet don't leave the ground" Meaning he wouldn't be taking any bumps, wouldn't be selling for anyone, and would basically be squashing all of his opponents without mercy. That to me gave him a big push that he had not earned yet, and he was put over everyone like that, even Hogan.

Shawn Michaels on the other hand, worked his way to the top, and earned every inch, night in and night out. No one ever put him over that huge, and he was able to impress crowds with his own ability, not the appearance of ability due to the work of other wrestlers. He never just squashed guys like that, and always gave people 5 star matches whether he was or wasn't going over. So, in essence the Undertaker, like Hogan before him, was 50% media creation in a sense. He just got to go over everyone he faced from day one, before he ever earned the push, which is most of the reason for his success throughout his career.

So are you degrading Undertaker in anyway because of what Vince did? Undertaker was brought in to be the next Andre and again he surpassed everything Andre did and more. Sure Hogan was mostly media creation, but he had wrestling skills behind that as well as Taker. People around here make it to be that media creation is a bad thing but it is not. If you have charisma and are well received by the crowd, sure you going to have media creation. It means that Vince believes enough in you that you can sustain that. Hogan ran with it to become the greatest wrestler of all time and Taker has had a pretty successful career. Undertaker was billed as a supernatural power so you think's he just going to lose to people left and right. The real problem was when they turned him face early into his career with him being the smaller man in a big man feud.

Shawn Michaels is not the only Grand Slam Champion as Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Booker T, and HHH are as well. Both Undertaker and HBK weren't huge draws and they didn't have great runs on top of the company but at the end of the day, Taker was chosen to be the next Andre and was successful with that for 20 years so that's why I still pick Taker.