WWE Region, Fourth Round, 60 Minute Iron Man Match: (2) Bret Hart vs. (3) Undertaker

[George Steele's Barber]

Isn't UT's cardio concern argument bunk?

We're talking about a guy who consistently reaches a point in matches where he is basically dead and he pops back up like he is starting a new match. Make it a 600 minute match and UT is still not going to become fully exhausted.

Nevermind, I see it's 36 to 13.

 

[Loveless]

Well this match is over anyway but the matchtype doesn't suit Taker at all. On top of the 60 minutes he has to go through (and 60 minutes against a prime Hart is much harder than 50 against a past-it HHH), this argument that Taker wouldn't tap is ludicrous.
This is a match in which it's actually logical that he taps and taps quickly, because if he doesn't he's going to end up stuck in the sharpshooter for 20 minutes. It's not about tapping due to the pain, it's about getting out of the hold quickly before it does any damage.

 

[Da Solo]

1. Taker doesn't tap out, that's a given, and he could power out of a Sharpshooter before it cripples him.

2. Taker's record against Bret is kind of irrelevant. Most of those matches ended in DQ, and Bret never pinned Taker clean.

3. It's an Ironman, and common sense says Taker is guaranteed at least one fall. Bret already has a struggle getting one fall on Taker, getting another one to tip the scale would be impossible. Expect multiple Taker sit ups, too.

Taker wins.

 

[deem]

I voted Bret - first time I've voted somewhat against reason but he really shouldn't be losing by this much. Was finally swung by the argument that Undertaker may tactically submit to avoid further damage, could definitely see this coming into play. If he's ever tapping out, it's in a 60m ironman match. That, plus how much Bret will wear the legs down, was enough for me.

Glad Undertaker's advancing though, I far prefer him.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Well this match is over anyway but the matchtype doesn't suit Taker at all. On top of the 60 minutes he has to go through (and 60 minutes against a prime Hart is much harder than 50 against a past-it HHH), this argument that Taker wouldn't tap is ludicrous.
This is a match in which it's actually logical that he taps and taps quickly, because if he doesn't he's going to end up stuck in the sharpshooter for 20 minutes. It's not about tapping due to the pain, it's about getting out of the hold quickly before it does any damage.

Why does 'Taker have to tap out to avoid further damage? We've seen him power out of the Sharpshooter before and he's done it more than once. I believe he powered out of it two or three times at Summer Slam 97. So why wouldn't a prime 'Taker be able to power out of it in this match?

 

[Tastycles]

And yet, when it mattered he never did.

WWF Title Matches

WWF One Night Only 1997
1-0 Bret Hart (c) def. (DQ) The Undertaker

WWF Friday Night's Main Event
2-0 The Undertaker def. (DQ) Bret Hart (c)

WWF SummerSlam '97
3-0 Bret Hart def. (pin) The Undertaker (c)

WWF In Your House 13: Final Four
4-0 Bret Hart def. Steve Austin, The Undertaker, Vader

WWF Royal Rumble '96
5-0 The Undertaker def. (DQ) Bret Hart (c)

WWF MSG Show
6-0 Nov 25th 1995 The Undertaker def. (DQ) Bret Hart (c)

6 times Undertaker tried to take the belt off Hart and he failed, every damn time. Let's just ignore the facts and go with Taker though.

So that's 3-3 in terms of match outcomes then? And Hart won one of those three because Michaels fucked up and another was a fatal four way.

I think this is the year when these forums have finally come to realise the truth: Bret Hart is not an all-time great, but merely a very good wrestler that benefitted from being around when there weren't really any all time greats around to compete with. Pedro Morales and so forth are dumped out of this tournament too early, Hart lasts too long, it looks like now the balance might be redressing.

Hart was fine, but ultimately he lacks the longevity of a guy like the Undertaker, and I'm not talking about career length. Hart debuted with the WWF in 1984 and retired from WCW in 2000. Within that 16 year span he was a main eventer in 1992-7 and 1999. That's 6 years. Undertaker debuted in 1991, and was a main eventer consistently for the first year there, as well as all 10 years from 1997-2007. He was unquestionably more of an asset to the company.

Undertaker in his forties has wrestled matches well over half an hour long, so I don't think there's much issue with conditioning, and ultimately, much of HArt's arsenal is totally useless against him. For me, this has to be a Taker win.

 

[Loveless]

So that's 3-3 in terms of match outcomes then? And Hart won one of those three because Michaels fucked up and another was a fatal four way.

When it comes to what matters, it's 6-0. Simple fact is Taker couldn't beat Hart when the title was on the line. Bret walked away with the title every time and all the excuses & interferences as to how are irrelevant, they happened because Bret was the bigger star. The same happened with Angle, Taker is 4-0 to him in title matches too.
This Taker cardio issue is a nonsense too. The guy has 1 match a year and 11 months to recover from it. If he was working a regular schedule there's no way he could go 60 minutes with Hart.

 

[Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!]

Both men are the greatest of all time and I respect both. Undertaker may never submit, However, I see Bret weakling 'Takers big legs and make 'Taker tired at the end of the match. Bret is a smart wrestlers and thinks 2 moves ahead, Bret would find ways to get 'Taker pinned.

I'm voting for the Hitman.