WCW Region, Phoenix Subregion, Second Round: (2) Undertaker vs. (15) Big Daddy

[klunderbunker]

This is a second round match in the WCW Region, Phoenix Subregion. It is a standard one on one match held under WCW Rules. It will be held at the US Airways Center in Phoenix, Arizona.

#2. Undertaker

Vs.

#15. Big Daddy

​

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

Assume that all wrestlers are at full strength after their first round matches.

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

 

[Bernkastel]

Big Daddy seems to be underrated on this forum, and I don't know if it's because he really didn't have the career defining moments as other big names or that Britain wasn't really considered a hotbed for pro wrestling like the US, Canada, Japan, and Mexico were. Regardless of that the man was extremely popular and was an enormous draw. So much so that the popularity of the sport in the UK reached new heights during his prime. Heights that have never been seen since the man's retirement and death. Such as his record setting television rating which drew 18 million viewers. He was so popular that even Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret Thatcher have named him among their favorite performers.

Undertaker has never been that big of a draw because he was never the biggest star within the WWE. Even his streak was not largely given credibility until he was already 9-0. And it's only been in the past 5 years that the streak has been at it's peak of relevance. When he won the Rumble in 2007 WWE couldn't even be bothered to give him a program with the biggest star in the company who was champion at the time. There's no real denying that Big Daddy was the larger draw, and achieved more with less to work with than what WWE could provide for the Undertaker, and for just as long.

Big Daddy probably won't win, but his legacy and contributions to pro wrestling as a whole are still worth noting.

 

[The Brain]

Undertaker has always kind of been in the Andre The Giant category. He's an attraction on his own and doesn't need the title to be special. It doesn't matter who he's matched up against, Taker was someone people always wanted to see. I haven't seen much of Big Daddy and I admit I've probably been hard on him before but I'm just not impressed by what I've seen. I can't imagine this guy going over Taker.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Undertaker has always kind of been in the Andre The Giant category. He's an attraction on his own and doesn't need the title to be special. It doesn't matter who he's matched up against, Taker was someone people always wanted to see. I haven't seen much of Big Daddy and I admit I've probably been hard on him before but I'm just not impressed by what I've seen. I can't imagine this guy going over Taker.

Expect Taker wasn't someone that people always wanted to see. Taker is highly overrated. He main evented the lowest grossing, and lowest buyrate for a Wrestlemania in history. He hardly was the draw on a card, he was always secondary and he never even got into HBK territory as a draw. Taker has had an incredible career and some people LOVED Taker but the truth is, he never drew anything. He was a second tier guy at best.

 

[The Brain]

We're not going to blame WM13 on Taker, are we? That was a terrible time for the WWF an was a horribly booked show. He's also played a major role in some of the highest grossing events. He's always been popular and I've seen plenty of Taker merch over the years. People on this very forum talk about his potential mania match a year ahead of time every single year despite him not being on tv. You need more than one bad mania during a dark time for the company to convince me Taker couldn't draw.

 

[Con T.]

We're not going to blame WM13 on Taker, are we? That was a terrible time for the WWF an was a horribly booked show. He's also played a major role in some of the highest grossing events. He's always been popular and I've seen plenty of Taker merch over the years. People on this very forum talk about his potential mania match a year ahead of time every single year despite him not being on tv. You need more than one bad mania during a dark time for the company to convince me Taker couldn't draw.

How's about this...

Wrestlemania started tracking worldwide buys since Wrestlemania 21. Here's a graph.

You'll note that of all these Manias, 26 is the lowest.

Guess who highlighted that one.

People talk about his mania match, because of how well WWE built The Streak. If you think Taker's next match (if he has a next match) draws nearly as much attention, you're nuts.

Also, Taker happened to have 98 under his cap, that I'll give you. The problem is, that also happens to be the year that Steve Austin was lighting the world on fire. I don't think I'm too crazy in giving Steve and Vince more credit for drawing those houses than Taker.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

We're not going to blame WM13 on Taker, are we? That was a terrible time for the WWF an was a horribly booked show. He's also played a major role in some of the highest grossing events. He's always been popular and I've seen plenty of Taker merch over the years. People on this very forum talk about his potential mania match a year ahead of time every single year despite him not being on tv. You need more than one bad mania during a dark time for the company to convince me Taker couldn't draw.

No I actually blame the WM 13 buyrates on HBK not being there but let's dig deep. What's the lowest buyrate for a WM since WM 20? Undertaker vs Michaels. With the Streak and Shawn Michaels career on the line Taker and HBK still couldn't draw like a John Cena or someone along those lines. There's also a reason why Taker has never been the main guy in WWE. It's mostly because he wasn't a huge draw and never was.

 

[The Brain]

How's about this...

Wrestlemania started tracking worldwide buys since Wrestlemania 21. Here's a graph.

You'll note that of all these Manias, 26 is the lowest.

Guess who highlighted that one.

People talk about his mania match, because of how well WWE built The Streak. If you think Taker's next match (if he has a next match) draws nearly as much attention, you're nuts.

Also, Taker happened to have 98 under his cap, that I'll give you. The problem is, that also happens to be the year that Steve Austin was lighting the world on fire. I don't think I'm too crazy in giving Steve and Vince more credit for drawing those houses than Taker.

Why do you guys always rope me in right before I'm ready to go to sleep?

So WM26 was lower than some others. That doesn't prove Taker is not a draw. What do I always hear about WM23? Taker vs. Batista should have closed the show. Taker did close WM24 in a match most people loved. All anyone talks about from WM25 is Taker vs. HBK. Same goes for WM27 vs. HHH. You can even argue that Taker vs. HHH stole the show at WM28 over a match that had a one year build. Yes, people talk about his match because of how well the streak was hyped. People were interested in it. It was a draw.

If you want to get some support for Big Daddy I suggest you educate us on him. I didn't see his name mentioned in your post. I look forward to reading your thoughts on him tomorrow.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Why do you guys always rope me in right before I'm ready to go to sleep?

So WM26 was lower than some others. That doesn't prove Taker is not a draw. What do I always hear about WM23? Taker vs. Batista should have closed the show. Taker did close WM24 in a match most people loved. All anyone talks about from WM25 is Taker vs. HBK. Same goes for WM27 vs. HHH. You can even argue that Taker vs. HHH stole the show at WM28 over a match that had a one year build. Yes, people talk about his match because of how well the streak was hyped. People were interested in it. It was a draw.

If you want to get some support for Big Daddy I suggest you educate us on him. I didn't see his name mentioned in your post. I look forward to reading your thoughts on him tomorrow.

Great matches don't make you a draw, neither does it make you worthy of headlining WM. Truth be told, you can talk all day about how Mysterio and Malenko tore the house down in WCW but they weren't draws. Saying this match or that match should close doesn't matter. A lot of people thought Flair vs HBK should've closed but you don't know how good a match will be until after it happens. It could be a match like Taker vs Brock. And Taker has a year build for his match every year, and it still doesn't have the drawing power of a Cena.

 

[Nate DaMac]

So Taker doesn't draw like Cena. Guess what? Neither did Big Daddy. If you guys want to compare their gates or whatever then fine, at least that makes sense. But it seems silly to use Taker's drawing power in medium that didn't exist in Big Daddy's heyday to prove your point.

I haven't really made up my mind here because I just don't know enough about Big Daddy.

 

[klunderbunker]

What closed Wrestlemania 26? Shawn Michaels' retirement match. The fact that it was against Undertaker was a detail. That show was about HBK's last hurrah and Undertaker was along for the ride. I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is that Miz is a bigger draw than Randy Orton, HHH, John Cena and Batista as his numbers are higher than Wrestlemania 25 and 26.

What? You're not saying that? The Rock? Oh yeah he was at Wrestlemania 27 also. It's almost like there are other factors outside of one person in the final match of a show that determines if it's a success or not.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

What closed Wrestlemania 26? Shawn Michaels' retirement match. The fact that it was against Undertaker was a detail. That show was about HBK's last hurrah and Undertaker was along for the ride. I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is that Miz is a bigger draw than Randy Orton, HHH, John Cena and Batista as his numbers are higher than Wrestlemania 25 and 26.

What? You're not saying that? The Rock? Oh yeah he was at Wrestlemania 27 also. It's almost like there are other factors outside of one person in the final match of a show that determines if it's a success or not.

You are correct! It just that Taker never moved the needle, and it was just as much about Takers streak as it was Michaels Career. And No I'd never say it was about Miz, what I'd say is what I've said before. When you have the Rock and Cena, you have drawing power. It as if more than one man makes mania? yes but you look at the top of the card to be your main draw. There's a reason why Taker's hardly there, and from what you said one of the few times he was, it was simply because it was HBK's last hurrah and had little to do with Taker.

Taker wasn't a headliner, or a draw, never was. He never rose to that level, and I'll be honest. The reason I haven't voted is mainly because I have to think on this. Because Big Daddy and Taker are about in the same place IMO.

 

[Bernkastel]

You are correct! It just that Taker never moved the needle, and it was just as much about Takers streak as it was Michaels Career. And No I'd never say it was about Miz, what I'd say is what I've said before. When you have the Rock and Cena, you have drawing power. It as if more than one man makes mania? yes but you look at the top of the card to be your main draw. There's a reason why Taker's hardly there, and from what you said one of the few times he was, it was simply because it was HBK's last hurrah and had little to do with Taker.

Taker wasn't a headliner, or a draw, never was. He never rose to that level, and I'll be honest. The reason I haven't voted is mainly because I have to think on this. Because Big Daddy and Taker are about in the same place IMO.

Exactly. Taker has never been the type of guy that the fans have cared about enough to do that kind of thing. Big Daddy was. In fact he moved the needle so violently that the success he found has never been duplicated. He raised the pro wrestling scene in an entire country to levels that haven't been seen since. Even the monarchs thought it was an impressive achievement. Obama is not going to come out and sing Undy's praise as a wrestler and his impact on the business. He may praise Hogan, he may praise Ultimate Warrior, he may even praise Rock or Cena. But definitely not Taker.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Exactly. Taker has never been the type of guy that the fans have cared about enough to do that kind of thing. Big Daddy was. In fact he moved the needle so violently that the success he found has never been duplicated. He raised the pro wrestling scene in an entire country to levels that haven't been seen since. Even the monarchs thought it was an impressive achievement. Obama is not going to come out and sing Undy's praise as a wrestler and his impact on the business. He may praise Hogan, he may praise Ultimate Warrior, he may even praise Rock or Cena. But definitely not Taker.

May I ask you a question? Because I haven't found it, if you can show me where the Queen or Thatcher said he was one of their favorite performers, I'd vote for Big Daddy because that will show me that Big Daddy transcended wrestling more than Undertaker did.

 

[klunderbunker]

You are correct! It just that Taker never moved the needle, and it was just as much about Takers streak as it was Michaels Career. And No I'd never say it was about Miz, what I'd say is what I've said before. When you have the Rock and Cena, you have drawing power. It as if more than one man makes mania? yes but you look at the top of the card to be your main draw. There's a reason why Taker's hardly there, and from what you said one of the few times he was, it was simply because it was HBK's last hurrah and had little to do with Taker.

Taker wasn't a headliner, or a draw, never was. He never rose to that level, and I'll be honest. The reason I haven't voted is mainly because I have to think on this. Because Big Daddy and Taker are about in the same place IMO.

If we're talking about drawing power, this goes to Taker and it's not even close. One reason: there aren't as many people in England. No Undertaker wasn't a top draw in America, but a second level draw in America is going to draw more people than a top draw in England, especially with the time period Undertaker performed in.

Now that being said, it's a ridiculous way to go about picking a winner, as if you go by this, it turns into a matter of finding numbers to back up your argument and little more, which is very dull.

That being said, let's look at this from another perspective. Big Daddy is, simply put, a big fat guy. He even uses the signature moves of big fat wrestlers in the splash. Undertaker made a career out of beating up big fat guys with either a tombstone or knocking them off their feet and making them look like a turtle on its back. If he can tombstone Vader (which he could), he can tombstone Big Daddy.

Big Daddy is without a doubt a bigger deal in his country than Undertaker is in America, but this plays right into Undertaker's strengths.

 

[Bernkastel]

May I ask you a question? Because I haven't found it, if you can show me where the Queen or Thatcher said he was one of their favorite performers, I'd vote for Big Daddy because that will show me that Big Daddy transcended wrestling more than Undertaker did.

From his obituary in 1997. It's stated that both Queen Elizabeth II and Thatcher were fans of Big Daddy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-big-daddy-1286571.htm

Queen Elizabeth has written about Big Daddy in her memoirs. Here's another...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...an-who-works-for-the-Queen-is-a-wrestler.html

Don't know the legitimacy of the paper but it details the fact that the queen was a fan. Obama might know Hogan, and he might know Sting, and he might know Rock, and he might know Sammartino. He'd probably have to Google who the Undertaker is.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

If we're talking about drawing power, this goes to Taker and it's not even close. One reason: there aren't as many people in England. No Undertaker wasn't a top draw in America, but a second level draw in America is going to draw more people than a top draw in England, especially with the time period Undertaker performed in.

Now that being said, it's a ridiculous way to go about picking a winner, as if you go by this, it turns into a matter of finding numbers to back up your argument and little more, which is very dull.

That being said, let's look at this from another perspective. Big Daddy is, simply put, a big fat guy. He even uses the signature moves of big fat wrestlers in the splash. Undertaker made a career out of beating up big fat guys with either a tombstone or knocking them off their feet and making them look like a turtle on its back. If he can tombstone Vader (which he could), he can tombstone Big Daddy.

Big Daddy is without a doubt a bigger deal in his country than Undertaker is in America, but this plays right into Undertaker's strengths.

No it's not ALL about drawing power, I agree there. It comes into play though, and Big Daddy being the biggest star in wrestling in his countries history plays a role too. I try to find a median in all of this so I can make a fair assessment of who I think should go over. It's not just because of who had more access and who I think is the bigger draw. Mainly because you kill off most of the heels. That said I like to see all facts before I vote. Drawing power, transcending wrestling, matches, title reigns and there impact, and many other things come into play with me. Honestly, if it's not a slam dunk for me I spend a lot of time trying to find how to pick a winner. Instead of just looking at a guy and saying. OH I LIKE HIM MORE, or OMG He's my favorite. If so I'd pick HBK every round and I don't think that proper.

 

[Bernkastel]

If we're talking about drawing power, this goes to Taker and it's not even close. One reason: there aren't as many people in England.

Not really. Big Daddy was drawing sold out crowds where ever he went and still holds a television record that Taker couldn't touch if he wanted to. To me it's way more impressive that Daddy accomplished what he did with far less to work with. Even to the point where his nations rulers thanked him for it.

No Undertaker wasn't a top draw in America, but a second level draw in America is going to draw more people than a top draw in England, especially with the time period Undertaker performed in.

In that case it's arguable that Taker himself wasn't a draw and the WWE as a brand was. He wasn't ever the top guy moving the needle. He was just a guy at the top benefiting from being at the top of a major promotion.

Now that being said, it's a ridiculous way to go about picking a winner, as if you go by this, it turns into a matter of finding numbers to back up your argument and little more, which is very dull.

Not really. Proper numbers make the argument more impressive, especially when it shows Daddy accomplished allot more with less to work with.

That being said, let's look at this from another perspective. Big Daddy is, simply put, a big fat guy. He even uses the signature moves of big fat wrestlers in the splash. Undertaker made a career out of beating up big fat guys with either a tombstone or knocking them off their feet and making them look like a turtle on its back. If he can tombstone Vader (which he could), he can tombstone Big Daddy.

That's a subjective perspective. Big Daddy made a living defeating everyone he fought against. So why would Taker be any different, because he was a member of a big promotion? Based on that logic Miz should beat Big Daddy.

Big Daddy is without a doubt a bigger deal in his country than Undertaker is in America, but this plays right into Undertaker's strengths.

Actually it doesn't. It means Daddy had a far larger reach with his fans than Taker did. And WWE was a national promotion during the 90's and to the mid 00's. Since Taker has only made rare appearances throughout the past few years he probably wasn't there when WWE did these global tours. If people know who he is it's because they know what the WWE is. Undertaker isn't a name that transcends wrestling. Big Daddy's was.

 

[klunderbunker]

Not really. Big Daddy was drawing sold out crowds where ever he went and still holds a television record that Taker couldn't touch if he wanted to. To me it's way more impressive that Daddy accomplished what he did with far less to work with. Even to the point where his nations rulers thanked him for it.

What record is that?

For some reason, I think Undertaker being called the Lord of Darkness might have had something to do with Bill Clinton not being a huge fan.

In that case it's arguable that Taker himself wasn't a draw and the WWE as a brand was. He wasn't ever the top guy moving the needle. He was just a guy at the top benefiting from being at the top of a major promotion.

Based on that logic, Austin, Rock, Hogan and Cena aren't draws either and it's all about the company name on their checks.

Not really. Proper numbers make the argument more impressive, especially when it shows Daddy accomplished allot more with less to work with.

The numbers I see show Undertaker winning against far bigger names in front of bigger audiences.

That's a subjective perspective. Big Daddy made a living defeating everyone he fought against. So why would Taker be any different, because he was a member of a big promotion? Based on that logic Miz should beat Big Daddy.

Do you really want to bring up an undefeated streak in an argument involving the Undertaker?

Actually it doesn't. It means Daddy had a far larger reach with his fans than Taker did. And WWE was a national promotion during the 90's and to the mid 00's. Since Taker has only made rare appearances throughout the past few years he wasn't there when WWE did these global tours. If people know who he is it's because they know what the WWE. Undertaker isn't a name that transcends wrestling. Big Daddy's was.

Undertaker in Japan and not in WWF.

[youtube]2swfqkMm44Q[/youtube]

Undertaker in England.

[youtube]w2U_JLPA6sA[/youtube]

We'll go down under to close it out.

[YOUTUBE]7Si97LIUgTk[/YOUTUBE]

That would be a nice world tour for Undertaker. I'm still not clear why none of this counts just because he worked for the WWF. Big Daddy was a big fish in a small pond. Undertaker was a good sized fish in the biggest pond there was and wrestled all over the world.

 

[Bernkastel]

What record is that?

His television record of drawing 18 million viewers for one match. Nothing but his own merit. No major promotion backing him.

For some reason, I think Undertaker being called the Lord of Darkness might have had something to do with Bill Clinton not being a huge fan.

Really? Tell me more.

Based on that logic, Austin, Rock, Hogan and Cena aren't draws either and it's all about the company name on their checks.

Of course. Except for Hogan because he built the company that would later pay those checks. And Austin since he expanded the revenue of the WWE to a level where they could afford to pay him more. It's a double edged sword with that logic. If you want to claim big stars with big promotions are more successful than big stars in smaller promotions, or those that didn't have that support then you need to recognize that advantage. If you still believe that the advantage of being a big fish in a pond with big reach compared to being a big fish in pond that you yourself had to expand then that's certainly your opinion.

Personally I feel that what Big Daddy accomplished was way more impressive. He transcended the idea of "promotional backing" and not many wrestling stars did that. Especially in the 1980's.

The numbers I see show Undertaker winning against far bigger names in front of bigger audiences.

Those numbers being mostly generated by the WWE's name value. Not Taker's. He wasn't the one making the needle move. Big Daddy was. Just because his pond was smaller shouldn't be a detriment in this case. If it were Daddy versus a American star that did move that needle then you'd have your case.

Do you really want to bring up an undefeated streak in an argument involving the Undertaker?

A streak that was only hyped for a third of it's lifetime and most of the time didn't even do what it was created to do: draw money. Otherwise Taker would have been given high profile matches allot more often.

That would be a nice world tour for Undertaker. I'm still not clear why none of this counts just because he worked for the WWF. Big Daddy was a big fish in a small pond. Undertaker was a good sized fish in the biggest pond there was and wrestled all over the world.

In my opinion being a "good sized fish" isn't good enough because a "good sized fish" still isn't a big fish.

 

[GI Cake]

Undertaker rode a motorcycle down to the ring. That is super badass, like seriously it was Harley for Christ sake. Meanwhile Big Daddy has to ride a rascal around the supermarket. Vote Undertaker, vote for America.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Big Daddy? More like Big Fatty! Undertaker won at 21 straight Wrestlemanias. Big Daddy probably farted his way through 21 pairs of underwear a day. I'll vote for the man without mud butt thank you very much.

Not even that, but has Big Daddy ever brought grown men to tears? Has Big Daddy ever moved a man to do this?

Probably not, because every photo I've ever seen of Big Daddy is black and white, and everyone is black and white photos is racist.

Vote Undertaker. Vote America. Vote Freedom

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

I'm British, and I can tell you right now that Big Daddy is not the El Santo of Britain. He's not even close to that level. Whilst he's held in high regard as one of the greatest British wrestlers, it's much more open to debate than El Santo's position as a national hero.

BBC Grandstand was a big sports show that was started in the 50's that lasted until 2007. During this time, the BBC's biggest competition ITV developed its counter called World of Sport in 1965 and this lasted until 1985 when World of Sport was cancelled. A 45 minute time-slot was reserved for a show called "Wrestling", which featured men such as Giant Haystacks, Mick McManus, and of course, Big Daddy, among many others. The Big Daddy character debuted in 1972, and quickly became the star of the entire World of Sport show, and in effect, wrestling in Britain because the territories were taking heavy losses during that period. Wrestling was temporarily cancelled with the cancellation of World of Sport, but found a slot until 1988, when it was cancelled for good.

Now, Wrestling got an astonishing amount of views for British standards, amassing 12 million viewers a week, but Grandstand still managed to draw a larger audience for the most part due to it being BBC's possession (keep in mind, pretty much everyone in Britain owned a TV at that point) To make matters worse, while the concept of the Big Daddy character was good for television, the same couldn't be said for buy rates, and promotion dwindled. Other performers dissatisfied with Big Daddy's dominance went overseas, such as Dynamite Kid, Davey Boy Smith and Finlay.

The closest thing Big Daddy had to major mainstream exposure other than television is a comic strip in the Buster, which was a fair amount below the big British comics at the time The Beano and The Dandy, and I believe was surpassed by 2000 AD pretty quickly (I can't believe I'm talking about Judge Dredd in the WZT). What I'm trying to say is that Buster was far from the biggest comic strip in Britain, even at the time.

In conclusion, Big Daddy was the biggest British wrestler produced primarily in Britain, but he still wasn't that much. He got great television views, but BBC Grandstand still outclassed them. He really wasn't much of a live event draw either during his time at the top. Gigantic for British standards, but again, British standards pale to the overall impact of The Undertaker, who I will say changed wrestling gimmicks forever.

Like I said, Big Daddy is not El Santo, and at the end of the day, The Undertaker impacted the wrestling world more than Big Daddy did.

 

[klunderbunker]

His television record of drawing 18 million viewers for one match. Nothing but his own merit. No major promotion backing him.

Well done indeed. Undertaker vs. Austin drew the highest rating for a match in the history of Raw with a lot more competition to beat.

Of course. Except for Hogan because he built the company that would later pay those checks. And Austin since he expanded the revenue of the WWE to a level where they could afford to pay him more. It's a double edged sword with that logic. If you want to claim big stars with big promotions are more successful than big stars in smaller promotions, or those that didn't have that support then you need to recognize that advantage. If you still believe that the advantage of being a big fish in a pond with big reach compared to being a big fish in pond that you yourself had to expand then that's certainly your opinion.

Personally I feel that what Big Daddy accomplished was way more impressive. He transcended the idea of "promotional backing" and not many wrestling stars did that. Especially in the 1980's.

I'm sure that Big Daddy's brother booking the promotion had nothing to do with his push either, right?

Sure WWE was an advantage for Undertaker, but why should that be held against him? Why should Big Daddy get credit for the situation he was born into while Undertaker shouldn't?

Those numbers being mostly generated by the WWE's name value. Not Taker's. He wasn't the one making the needle move. Big Daddy was. Just because his pond was smaller shouldn't be a detriment in this case. If it were Daddy versus a American star that did move that needle then you'd have your case.

Oh I'd say the Streak sold a few tickets and got a few people to watch over the years.

A streak that was only hyped for a third of it's lifetime and most of the time didn't even do what it was created to do: draw money. Otherwise Taker would have been given high profile matches allot more often.

JR at Wrestlemania X7: "The Undertaker is 8-0. He has never lost at Wrestlemania."

Ric FLair before Wrestlemania X8 (paraphrased): "You've never lost at Wrestlemania. I'm going to be the first person to take that from you."

That's way before half.

 

[Lee]

Take does draw, look at Mania buys for the reason.

Big Daddy wouldn't have the stamina to last for Taker sadly. Taker wins.