When would that be then? I haven't heard anybody give a specific time.
I have. I said you could take either 1991 or 2008 as his prime. I'm going to say both, but you could pick either. He had two primes, like other some other wrestlers did, c.f. Hogan 1987 and Hogan 1996.
Not really. That'd be 2007, when he was at his most succesful. Top of the card with the world title. You could go for 1997, but he wasn't as high up the card as he was in 2007.
Khali beat him in 2006, when he wasn't very high up the card. Hisfeud with Khali was an extension of his feud with Daivari and Mark Henry. Hardly the main event mafia.
But he didn't. Anyway, Cena only beat Khali because he'd been on ECW wrestling jobbers. He was ill prepared and his knees were almost fucked by then.
If his knees were fucked 3 months after his feud with Taker ended, then you have to concede that he either had the shortest prime ever, or that he has a weakness to be exploited when he was in his prime.
See above. His peak was when he made his debut.
So was Undertaker's. Or it could have been last year. At either point he was better than Khali.
I think he woud probably beat Kidman. Maybe Jerry Lawler too. Which is quite deep for the number 63 seed.
A heel utalizing his manager? How dare he. Notice how heels hardly ever get caught doing anything illegal but faces do? Same thing applies here.
Well, The Undertaker in 1991 was a heel who used both Ric Flair and Paul Bearer to his advantage. Daivari is not as good as an urn with mystical powers, nor is he as good as Ric Flair. So he would be more than neutralised here.
Depends what the rules of the tournament are. Are we to assume that this tournament is the first ever match between Khali & The Undertaker.
If you are taking them both in their primes, then it'd be the first time Khali had fought Taker, and the first time that 1991 Taker had fought Khali but not the first time 2008 Taker had fought Khali. It is a philosophical headache in such a time free tournament.
I did for Gonzalez. If Kozlov was in the tournament then I would to. But not Snitzky, his wins were fluke.
Then do it for 1991 Undertaker too.
I see the logic, but it is flawed.
Why? Because he's a poor worker?
Because his prime will have lasted less than 4 mnths, 2 months of which he was injured for.
I've yet to hear anybody give a real reason why Taker wasn't in his prime.
Because he hadn't won a world title for four years, which I think is one of the longest barren spells in his career. He had just been feuding with Mark Henry, and before that Kurt Angle, who he lost to. Since the previous Judgment Day he had only beaten Mark Henry, Muhammed Hassan and Orton on PPV. Orton was in a Hell in a cell match, so by the logic of everyone supporting Khali, we should only count when Orton beat him at Summerslam in a singles match.
But he didn't. He lost. FACT.
Yeah, he didn't win when he wasn't in his prime, I agree, but he would when he was.
THIS IS KHALI IN HIS PRIME IN A ONE ON ONE MATCH WITH REGULA RULES.
Against the Undertaker in his prime. The matches they've had don't support either side's argument because they have never fought when they were both in their primes.
Yeah, pretty sure each of the matches should be viewed as if they're the first one-on-one encounter.
I think you have to suspend reality for a minute and think about prime vs. prime it is possible that one person will have fought the other, but not the other way around. Taker 2008 had Khali figured out, Taker 1991 did not. I think Taker 1991 has a better chance against Khali 2006, so it is their first match, in my mind at least.
Use that for a minute and you'll find that Taker very rarely figures out the big guys straight away. It's safe to say he's a little slow.
With Khali, you just have brute power and strength. Taker 1991 could feel no pain. To have beaten him, you'd need a bit of intelligence, like when Hogan outwitted him by blinding him. Khali does not have that kind of ingenuity and wouldn't be able to find a way to beat him.
I'll ask Shocky how we should view the matches.
Let me know what the verdict on that one is.
Broken record I know. But singles match, non gimmick, Khali in his prime. Khali won.
Broken record, I know. But Undertaker was not in his prime.
Undertaker lost that feud you know. Batista has pinned Undertaker more times than he's pinned Khali.
Batista vs. Undertaker, A History.
WrestleMania (Undertaker)
Backlash (No Contest)
Smackdown (Draw)
Cyber Sunday (Batista)
Survivor Series (Batista)
Armageddon (Edge)
There's probably more.
As only singles matches count apparently, how many times did Batista beat Undertaker? Only when Austin was the referee. Survivor Series was a Hell in a Cell.
Not the 1990-1996 version.
Not sure about that. The Undertaker could run off the ropes, something tht Khali never does. Ever. He just stands in the middle of the ring. Undertaker 1991 may have been slow, but Khali doesn't move at all.
Bryan Danielson has more than Hulk Hogan.
But Khali relies on three moves. The Vice grip won't work because 1991 Taker is impervious to pain, and the chop won't work because wheneve 1991 Taker was hit with an urn, it didn't make him go down properly. The Khali bomb is the one move that he could try, I suppose. Even Undertaker 1991 has a lot more moves in his repetoire than Khali, and I think he'd win this.
It must be why they take him off TV regularly and alter his character.
No I think that's because he has transcended eras of wrestling. People didn't want supernatural characters in 2001, so they stopped him being one. The style in which he fights has hardly changed in that time, he has just become better to watch in doing it.
He's only been around 3 years.
How many matches has he had in the past year though? In 2006 he had to have time off for his enzymes, in 2008, he hardly wrestled at all, and I don't think he's been in ring once in 2009. His three years are closer to two of actual competition.
What you're saying is that they're at their best when they're killing everybody. Gotcha.
And 1991 Undertaker was better atkilling people than 2006 Khali.
Yes.
You can eliminate tow of those finish moves. Nobody would honestly suggest he could get him up for a Tombstome or Last Ride.
I'm sceptical that Khali could Khali Bomb the Undertaker, which means you are left with precisely 0 finishing moves for Khali against the Chokeslam.
Head trauma. Kills a hell of a lot of people.
If a copper urn can't do it, a hand can't.
And The Claw. Whuich was devistating when it was done by a Von Erich. I'll find the grapefruit video later.
Undertaker 1991: impervious to pain.
This is kayfabe. Booking isn't an issue.
Booking is more of an issue than anything else in kayfabe. In an actual fight Snitsky would decimate Shawn Michaels. We have to look at how they have been booked in the past to see how they would go over someone in this tournament.
No.
Maybe.
Notice how none of the Khali fans feel the need to point that out. Not needed.
By what criteria does Khali win though? The fact that he beat Undertaker when he was in a lull. That's it, it's all you have.
Maybe, if somebody could pin down a rough prime for The Undertaker.
I'm saying Survivor Series 1990-This Tuesday in Texas 1991. You could also argue Royal Rumble 2007-One Night Stand/Summerslam 2008.
Versatility is the only one I'll give you.
I'll give you strength.
You haven't read much of the thread have you?
But people appear to be point to a match between The Undertaker and a broken down Khali. So those videos are unimportant.
The Great Khali prime defined: Debut 2006 - Loss to The Undertaker in a Last Man Standing Match 2006.
Ignore that loss, it was a gimmick match. Pretty much the only way Undertaker could beat him.
Khali was beating The Undertaker at one of the lowest points in his kayfabe career. When the Undertaker does the same thing to Khali, it is somehow different. Double standards.
Khali was booked strongly so that people in India could see someone they could get behind. Once these fans were into the product, he went on to do pretty much nothing, apart from winning the title when almost all viable options were injured.
I am. Vote Undertaker.
Yes. Kurt Angle beat Hulk Hogan as well you know. A lot easier too.
Are you seriously suggesting that Hogan in the 2000s was a patch on Hogan in 1991?
Undertaker beat Hogan with the help of Flair.
Khali was tied up in the ropes and getting repeatedly punched in the face until Daivari interfered. Khali's one thing he has going for him is this victory, and he'd never have managed it without Daivari.
That's fair enough, but Hogan beat him back a week later. He easily figured him out.
Hogan won by cheating and throwing ash in Taker's eyes. If that's figuring him out, then well done Hogan. Hogan is a far more resourceful performer than Khali. Khali is a big dumb giant, and that sort of person does not find a way to beat people if route one doesn't work, which it wouldn't on 1991 Undertaker.
Match quality is umimprotant.
Which is why Taker 1991, despite having much worse matches, is a shite sight better than Taker 2006.
I look forward to that.
