WZ Tournament Semi-Final: Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker

[Dan1708]

xfearbefore, i have not seen so much contradiction in my life.

You say that if we go by shoot fight means, Big show would crush Taker and Chuck columbo would beat HBK ect, okay fine.

But then u talk about Takers finishing moves and how the tombstone does not actually hit the persons head??? well xfearbefore if you want wrestlers with broken necks, then by no means good argument.

And u not only contradict yourself but you weaken your own argument, are u telling me that when HBK does his kicks, he full force wacks them in the face?

 

[HBK-aholic]

he has SURELY got MORE thab half the skill HBK got.
though HBK got more skill than taker its not WAY to much.
TAKER got power advantage and is one of the best strikers in the wrestling business. so JUST to base it on skill ONLY wont do justice.

IN A SINGLE MATCH THOUGH ON AN AVERAGE HBK DISPLAYES CONSIDERABLY MORE SKILL THAN THE DEADMAN BECAUSE THE DEADMANs SKILL HAS BEEN IMPROVING AS HE HAS GOT MORE AND MORE EXPERIENCE.

so your statement holds ground only if SKILL is evaluated prior to HBK having his back injury and his 4 yr absence from wrestling

I have no idea why you haven an obsession with the 'Caps lock' key, but it's annoying to everyone so stop. A capital letter comes at the beggining of a sentence, and for names etc. Okay with you?

And you're contradictory in this post. HBK has got more skill? But Undertaker has more than half the skill HBK got? Sorry, but what?
Shawn has jus as much experience. Shawn has also improved. But Undertaker isn't the best he ever was now; he's lost that. He's still great, don't get me wrong, but his 'prime' isn't now.

 

[Uncle Sam]

And will you please read the thread, where in my very first post I said why I thought HBK was a better wrestler, and have continued the points throughout.
On the other hand, you've given no valid reasons as to why Undertaker is better, so go on then?

Was the utter domination not enough? The size advantage, the stamina advantage (IMO, at least), the leverage advantage, the power advantage, the sheer agility that could easily catch Michaels off guard? Or is pot lock more powerful than all of those? I know this wasn't directed at me, but still.

Everyone has a gimmick which controls there matches in some way. This means nothing in explaining why Undertaker would win.

How does a gimmick where you cannot be beaten not have an effect? The gimmick is the wrestler in this case.

 

[Uncle Sam]

And you're contradictory in this post. HBK has got more skill? But Undertaker has more than half the skill HBK got? Sorry, but what?
Shawn has four years less experience. Shawn has also improved. But Undertaker isn't the best he ever was now; he's lost that. He's still great, don't get me wrong, but his 'prime' isn't now.

I'm not saying this factor is even important, because Michaels behaves with just as much maturity, but at least get it right.

 

[X]

xfearbefore, i have not seen so much contradiction in my life.

You say that if we go by shoot fight means, Big show would crush Taker and Chuck columbo would beat HBK ect, okay fine.

But then u talk about Takers finishing moves and how the tombstone does not actually hit the persons head??? well xfearbefore if you want wrestlers with broken necks, then by no means good argument.

And u not only contradict yourself but you weaken your own argument, are u telling me that when HBK does his kicks, he full force wacks them in the face?

How is that a contradiction at all? I talked about the actual damage Taker's finishing moves do on a person, and compared them to the damage HBK's kick does.

How does that contradict the fact that this isn't a shoot fight? Under the logic you are giving me right now, we are supposed to believe that the People's Elbow or the Worm is as devastating as the Pedigree? They're both finishing moves after all, so clearly by your logic they're all as damaging as the other.

 

[Dan1708]

i see what u did there.
However again, how many wrestling fans would actually say Takers Chokeslam was not as good as HBk super kick?
by my logic, no finisher has any real impact, only kayfabe inpact, and how that is decided is how it is portrayed, and its use historically
SO, going by my logic
Not nearly as many people have kicked out of the Tombstone than they have of the super kick.
I used deductive reasoning to win the argument.

 

[X]

i see what u did there.
However again, how many wrestling fans would actually say Takers Chokeslam was not as good as HBk super kick?
by my logic, no finisher has any real impact, only kayfabe inpact, and how that is decided is how it is portrayed, and its use historically
SO, going by my logic
Not nearly as many people have kicked out of the Tombstone than they have of the super kick.
I used deductive reasoning to win the argument.

...What I find hilarious about this post is that you claim to use deductive reasoning to "win" the argument. Which is hilarious, because you neither used deductive reasoning nor won this argument.

No one can truly "win" this argument. This entire tournament is based on people's personal opinion.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Was the utter domination not enough? The size advantage, the stamina advantage (IMO, at least), the leverage advantage, the power advantage, the sheer agility that could easily catch Michaels off guard? Or is pot lock more powerful than all of those? I know this wasn't directed at me, but still.

It wasn't directed at you for a reason; you've explained why you feel Undertaker would win, and I don't agree with it, but I can see why you think that way. He on the other hand, hasn't explained it, which is why I was asking.

How does a gimmick where you cannot be beaten not have an effect? The gimmick is the wrestler in this case.

Gimmicks control matches, I've said that, but everyone has a gimmick. And that quote was more directed at the assumption Undertajer hasn't changed his gimmick, something we all know has happened.
And no one has a gimmick which means they physically cannot be beaten.

 

[Dan1708]

Yes u are right no one can win, but i wasnt talking about the thread.
I was talking about the impact of moves.
You said, tombstone has no impact because it does not effect the head, true however HBK kick doesnt not hit hard.
Then u say that by my logic all finishers are the same.
Well that was what i expected.
To which then i said they can only be judged on how they have been portrayed in WWE.
And no one can denie that more people have kicked out of HBK super KICK than Takers tombstone.
That's what i like about FACTS it doesnt matter what people think.
I do philosopy at college i think i know what deductive reasoning is.

 

[emperor.indian]

Are you serious? So the Undertaker is better then HBK because he has more finishers? WTF?

no HBK is the better wrestler but just barely not by much
FINISHERS dont make a wrestler better necessarily but THEY DO GREATLY IMPROVE A WRESTLERS ABILITY TO WIN.
HBK is slightly better wrestler (EVEN NUMBER 1 IN MY LIST OF FAVOURITES)but UNDERTAKER is more likely to win this match

Undertaker has the chokeslam, Tombstone, Last Ride, and triangle choke. The chokeslam is a glorified body slam,

then why people dont kick out of it very often. not many have kicked out of it.

if you've ever seen Taker use the tombstone you'll see that 9/10 times his opponent's head doesn't even hit the ground (making it nothing more then grabbing a guy and running around with him)

and why is that when taker hits a tombstone astute obsevers like you notice that head hasnt hit the mat. because taker makes sure it doesnt hit the ground/mat. if it does hit the ground (either legitly by power or if botched it can break someones neck...at least one will be concussed or knocked out for sure)



,

the Last Ride is a simple power bomb (granted a more powerful one),

have you seen wrestlemania main event DIESEL V/S HBK. if shawn can be pinned by DIESEL powerbomb, whats wrong with the last ride(especially considering the michaels history of back problems ) . You yourself said its bit more powerful

and the Triangle Choke isn't even applied correctly, nor does it appear to be slightly painful. In real life you could reverse the Triangle Choke in about 2 seconds.

TAKER nowadays applies a MODIFIED/VARIANT traiangle choke not INCORRECT APPLIED.
okay it might not hurt much in real but dont tell me it doesnt VISUALLY APPEAR to be painful or hurt

So because the Undertaker has 4 finishing moves, only one of which would legitly hurt, that means he's better?

first of all all moves hurt some more some less if they are INTENDED to be hit to hurt the other person
and secondly it doesnt make TAKER a better wrestler than HBK but surely MORE LIKELY TO WIN THE MATCH

I'd rather be power bombed, choke slammed, tombstoned, or "triangle choked" any day of the week then have a foot shatter into my jaw in a split second, possibly breaking half of my teeth.

ok teeth are important but still NECK OR BACK INJURIES can kill a wrestlers career not breaking of a few teeth.
i (and many others ) would fear risking a NECK OR BACK INJURY more than fearing fractured or dislocated teeth

I don't think the finishers play a big role in this at all, but figured I'd argue it with you just for the principal alone.

FINISHERS DO PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE.....this is professional wrestling not a street brawl
you might not think so but WWE/TNA/ECW/WCW and numerous other professional wrestling leagues do think so thats why finishers are assigned to wrestlers. not to mention audience anticipates and awaits a finisher. they play a major role in creating drama and emotions in a match.
i can name several wrestlers who wont be DOMINANT or PROMINENT if it werent for their finishers.
why dont you try visualizing HBK without his SWEET CHIN MUSIC. would he still be AS POPULAR without it?

Simple. HBK has had better matches, better feuds, and better promos. He's much more enjoyable to watch wrestle then the Undertaker, who only knows how to wrestle one kind of match.

and that is the reason i say he is BETTER WRESTLER/SUPERSTAR than the undertaker.

still TAKER WINS IT ( very hard possibly the toughest win of takers career where he is streched to his limit and beyond)

 

[Shocky]

First of all, to go back to the beginning, for anyone to say the only reason people like Benoit was because he wrestled with 1000 holds is completely laughable. First of all, that's Dean Malenko, not Chris Benoit. Second, Smarks like Chris Benoit because of work rate, passion, and all in all, never half assing it in the ring when he didn't get a push. But I guess we should sacrifice an incredible worker and just dye our hair purple, jump off things, or say our name twice to get over.

If anyone thinks that Benoit wouldn't wear down Shawn Michaels, you're sadly mistaken. When push came to shove, Benoit dominated Shawn Michaels on pay per view, and made him tap out, so to think that Benoit wouldn't kill Shawn Michaels before he lost, you don't watch wrestling. The Undertaker has destroyed the Big Show each and every time they fought minus one time. The Undertaker is custom made to whoop fat lathargic bastards asses in no time. So yes, the Undertaker would go over show with no trouble while Benoit would take Michaels to the limit.

On pay per view, Shawn Michaels is 2-0-1 agaisnt the Undertaker. What most people forget to tell you is that in one match, the cell, Shawn Michaels was lying in a pool of his own blood and it took the debut of Kane for Michaels to win. Watch that match, Undertaker dominated. Fast forward to Royal Rumble 98, and again, the Deadman dominated michaels before a group of a half a dozen guys came down to the ring and the ultimate interference of Kane again. So those wins for Michaels go out the window, considering the Deadman dominated both matches.

The Reason why the Rumble 07 gets brought up. Because when it came down to a one on one situation with only two guys in the ring, the Undertaker one the match the way he was supposed to.

People like to throw out Michaels matches and say the Undertaker hasn't had good matches. You know why Michaels has good matches, because he doesn't get paired with guys like Khali, Mark Henry, Big Daddy V, King Kong Bundy, Kamala, or any other mistake of a super giant the WWE brings in. Michaels only works with guys that make him look good. The Undertaker gets decent matches out of shitty workers.

Also, Shawn Michaels a bigger name then the Undertaker, I suggest you stop watching revisionist history as told by the Kliq Controlled WWE. The Undertaker is one of the biggest names in history, while Michaels is well known amongst wrestling fans.

Championships, Michaels Four Time Champion, the Undertaker Five time champion. Tag titles, the Undertaker wins on that one too. Honestly, if you're voting for Michaels, that's fine. All I'm saying is, Shawn is good, the Undertaker is better.

 

[Dan1708]

Something actually came to me just now, and its very simple

The better wrestler does not always win, and im still not even accepting that HBK is a better wrestler than taker.

Would CM punk beat Khali, somehow i don't think so.
However this is in extreme context, but the same can be applied to HBK and Taker, for those that think HBK should win cause hes the so called 'better wrestler'.


EDIT: YES! Shockmaster finally someone with authority aswell as Common sense.

 

[Shocky]

Shawn has jus as much experience. Shawn has also improved. But Undertaker isn't the best he ever was now; he's lost that. He's still great, don't get me wrong, but his 'prime' isn't now.

Why are you making it out like the Undertaker can't wrestle, yet Shawn Michaels has just rolled out of bed and puts on great matches night in and night out. Maybe you haven't been watching the last few years, but if anyone is half assing and being lathargic in the ring, it's Shawn Michaels. Michaels matches over the last year have been nothing but dull and repetitive, but fanboys eat him up like he's still the Heartbreak Kid from 1992.

On the other hand, the Deadman has gotten better. He's slimmed down, and become more of a technical wrestler with submission holds, to go along with an already deadly aresnal of power moves, high flying moves, and ground and pound moves, to go along with being the best striker in the history of the business. The Undertaker is anything but boring, at least he's still trying to be relevant in this day and age. HBK gets over because he's HBK, plain and simple.

Seriously, can some one give me a logical, realistic situation and explain to me, a guy that's 27, has watched wrestling his entire life, and has seen the Undertaker and Michaels entire WWE careers. Give me one believable scenario that says that in one night Shawn Michaels can beat a prime Chris Benoit, and have enough left to defeat a prime Undertaker, whereas the Undertaker has to beat the Big Show, a guy he has dominated throughout his career, and face Michaels, a guy he has also dominated in the ring. If that scenario exist, let me know.

And this stamina thing, boy oh boy are people milking that thing for all it's worth. People want to talk about Michaels in the Rumble, which was the shortest rumble in history, and the Iron Man Match against Bret, which is very over rated and full of rest holds. You do know the Undertaker has wrestled 30 minute matches before right? It's not 1994, and he isn't that Undertaker. It's 2008, and the guy has certainly done more then that type cast.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Why are you making it out like the Undertaker can't wrestle,

Why am I making it out like The Undertaker can't wrestle? I'm a huge Undertaker fan, and in countless posts have said he was great; even the one you picked out.

yet Shawn Michaels has just rolled out of bed and puts on great matches night in and night out.

Actually, this is the point I was debating in the first place. I was saying Shawn DIDN'T just wake up and be great at wrestling the first time he did it, and has gotten better.

Maybe you haven't been watching the last few years, but if anyone is half assing and being lathargic in the ring, it's Shawn Michaels. Michaels matches over the last year have been nothing but dull and repetitive, but fanboys eat him up like he's still the Heartbreak Kid from 1992.

Feel a Vince McMahon moment..No chance in hell. No he isn't the same HBK, but his matches are still good, and if anyone watches Raw and PPV's they cannot tell me his matches still aren't the best.

It's all the people who think wrestlers should retire at the age of 40 or something, that say things about HBK being 'dull'. There seem to be a growing number of fans who think everyone over a certain age should stop wrestling and leave it to Cena, Orton etc.

On the other hand, the Deadman has gotten better. He's slimmed down, and become more of a technical wrestler with submission holds, to go along with an already deadly aresnal of power moves, high flying moves, and ground and pound moves, to go along with being the best striker in the history of the business. The Undertaker is anything but boring, at least he's still trying to be relevant in this day and age. HBK gets over because he's HBK, plain and simple.

How in the world can you undermine anything HBK has done by saying this? It doesn't even make sense. [/QUOTE]

 

[Shocky]

Simple, because HBK made a living ten years ago bitching about guys like Savage, Hogan, and Piper doing the exact same thing that he is doing now. All he did was shoot on guys that made the business what it was so he could have a job, and shit all over them. Guys like Triple H, and HBK, have lived off the same gimmick and the same routine. Yet these are the guys that called others before them fossils, these are the guys that once had pride in themselves about reinventing themselves night in and night out. The ironic thing, they became those guys that they spent most of their career ripping on and using those promos to become the guys they are. They live off of their names and their matches from ten years ago.

The Undertaker is always reinventing himself. Sure he's gone back to the deadman gimmick, but in no way shape or form is it the same dead man from 92-98. He's more of an MMA fighter now with the gimmick. That's the difference between the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels, Michaels lives off of his reputation, while the Undertaker stays ahead of the curve when it comes to reinventing himself.

 

[Skullz Crack'Em]

I will be voting for the Undertaker, this is an easy vote for me. If both men were fresh going into this match it would be worth debating, but come on, HBK just had a match with Chris Benoit, who was no slouch in any of his matches while Taker just ran circles around Big Show and had the power to beat him down as well. Yes, Shawn Michaels consistently puts on good matches compared to Taker who usually only has good matches at PPVs, but that is because Shawn has decent opponents to work with most of the time, unlike Taker who has Khali, Henry and Big Daddy V to work with most of the time. Also, it is going to take two or three Sweet Chin Musics to keep the Deadman down, it will only take one Tombstone to keep Shawn down. Taker wins with the Tombstone in 24 minutes.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Simple, because HBK made a living ten years ago bitching about guys like Savage, Hogan, and Piper doing the exact same thing that he is doing now. All he did was shoot on guys that made the business what it was so he could have a job, and shit all over them.

This is true; Shawn acted arrogant, and like a complete idiot to these guys 10 years ago. Something he's apologised for now. But why does this have anything to do with the way Shawn wrestles? Or a reason Undertaker would beat him? It doesn't.

Guys like Triple H, and HBK, have lived off the same gimmick and the same routine. Yet these are the guys that called others before them fossils, these are the guys that once had pride in themselves about reinventing themselves night in and night out. The ironic thing, they became those guys that they spent most of their career ripping on and using those promos to become the guys they are. They live off of their names and their matches from ten years ago.

Tell me then, why Shawn is still having great matches now? If he lives off of his name? Tell me why his matches are still the most entertaining? How he is still known to ALWAYS have great WM matches?
To say he lives off of his name from 10 years ago, is just arrogance, and disrespectful to him.

The Undertaker is always reinventing himself. Sure he's gone back to the deadman gimmick, but in no way shape or form is it the same dead man from 92-98. He's more of an MMA fighter now with the gimmick. That's the difference between the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels, Michaels lives off of his reputation, while the Undertaker stays ahead of the curve when it comes to reinventing himself.

I have to ask; since when is changing your gimmick a lot a good thing? It may not be a bad thing, but it definately isn't an advantage.
His gimmick may not have changed very much, but his matches do. They aren't predictable, aren't boring, and aren't just 'fillers'. Just because he's still the same Shawn Michaels he was then it terms of gimmick doesn't give a reason he couldn't beat Undertaker, and doesn't give a reason the Undertaker is better.

 

[Uncle Sam]

For me why Undertaker wins is obvious. Firstly, there's Undertaker's fundamental advantages on a wrestling level - strenth, leverage, size, striking ability, technical ability. What advantages does HBK have? Speed and agility. That's all, and I'd even argue about those two. An elbow drop and a moonsault does not necessarily a high-flyer make. However, walking the top rope and an over-the-top suicide dive, particularly from someone 'Taker's size, it's startling.

You bring in the fact that Undertaker has never been able to pin Michaels. That's bullshit. Every time that Michaels has beaten Taker, the guy has needed outside help... and usually a great amount of it. The first Hell in a Cell, The Undertaker left HBK a bloody mess by anyone's standards - remember that highlight video they always play with Michaels getting the shit kicked out of him? Yeah, that pretty much summed it up. Kane saved him that time. And, like Shockmaster said, in the Casket Match, Michaels needed even more help - and he was still put out of action for four years as a result. Are those examples of Michaels winning (if you can in fact call them victories, considering the vicious, vicious beatings he took) more valid than Undertaker taking the Showstopper on one-on-one in the biggest match of the year, and winning fairly? Hell no.

Then there's the stamina question. Does HBK have incredible stamina? If he does, he hides it well. How is Michaels at the end of matches, win or lose? I'll tell you how, completely wasted, dripping sweat, probably blood as well, and barely able to stand, especially in big match situations. How is Undertaker? He's fine, he raises his arm and calmly walks out usually. The Undertaker took Big Show apart, make no mistake. He's custom built to take down giants. How did HBK fair against Benoit, a true wrestling machine? Not great, Benoit would at least inflict some semi-severe limb damage and wear him down, it's just what he does. The Big Show just flounders. Don't believe me? Look at the numbers - The Undertaker has a 25% advantage already, don't discount that, it's your duty as a fair voter not to. If there's any doubt in your mind, that number should remove it.

 

[Lil Wes]

First of all, to go back to the beginning, for anyone to say the only reason people like Benoit was because he wrestled with 1000 holds is completely laughable.

Lol. That's why he's loved by the smarky fans.

Only because he can do 100000000 different submission moves and where did it get him? A fluke title reign in which Triple H had to be the focus because Beniot is a weak draw.

First of all, that's Dean Malenko, not Chris Benoit.

Second, That was sarcasm but true.

People love him for his wrestling but yet he had the charisma of a 2x4.

Second, Smarks like Chris Benoit because of work rate, passion, and all in all, never half assing it in the ring when he didn't get a push.

He didn't get a push because he wasn't championship material. They found that out when putting the belt on him in one of the most boring reigns I've ever witnessed as a wrestling fan.

Not to mention his matches in that reign were nothing memorable.

BTW, John Cena has all of that passion, work ethic etc. Where is his love from the smarky community?

But I guess we should sacrifice an incredible worker and just dye our hair purple, jump off things, or say our name twice to get over.

Kennedy has charisma and is a fantastic mic worker. Something Beniot made a fool of himself trying to do.

Hardy is a fan favorite and loved by millions. His push was rightfully deserved and was right on time.

 

[MattButcher]

I'm pretty much half tanked so there is little to no reason why I should respond to the previous entry, but..., Chris Benoit was one of the hardest working people in the business. He was adored by fans of the sport not only because of his technical mastery but because of his intensity and amazing ability to put on one hell of a show whenever he was called on to do so.

I'm not that interested in starting a debate over how good Benoit was in a thread dedicated to a hypothetical match between HBK and the Undertaker, but I have to take exception to the suggestion that Benoit is just a guy that internet fans or smarks parade around as opposed to really over guys like John Cena.

The fact is John Cena found professional wrestling and is a good match as he has the physicality and the charisma to contribute to the sport for a long time. Benoit wanted nothing more than to be part of pro wrestling from his teenage years and went through training and sacrifice that will never be part of Cena's biography. You may think that Benoit was a bland world champion, but for many of us that was a highly emotional moment when the man that deserved to win actually got a push.

I agree that Cena hating has become a sort of pastime amongst a certain breed of wrestling fan, but I resent that that should take anything from the accomplishments of Benoit inside the squared circle. Benoit is considered one of the greats because he has given us great matches: that is it, period.

 

[Shocky]

This is true; Shawn acted arrogant, and like a complete idiot to these guys 10 years ago. Something he's apologised for now. But why does this have anything to do with the way Shawn wrestles? Or a reason Undertaker would beat him? It doesn't.

Actually, you brought up that the Undertaker has lost a step, and insinuating that HBK was working still at full throttle. I simply challenged that and said the Undertaker has been better for the WWE the last few years then Michaels has.

Tell me then, why Shawn is still having great matches now? If he lives off of his name? Tell me why his matches are still the most entertaining? How he is still known to ALWAYS have great WM matches?
To say he lives off of his name from 10 years ago, is just arrogance, and disrespectful to him.

Is Shawn Michaels still having great matches? He's having good matches, at best. In fact, the only "great" match he had last year was against Orton at Survivor Series because he actually broke the mold of a typical Shawn Michaels match. Maybe more matches without using Chin Music would do HBK some good. We got to see HBK do stuff he hasn't done in a long time and it was enjoyable. Other then that, HBK has been running on neutral since the Hogan feud in 2005. The Cena match, I said then, and I'll say it again, was over rated. Just because a match goes 45 minutes doesn't mean it's good.

I have to ask; since when is changing your gimmick a lot a good thing? It may not be a bad thing, but it definately isn't an advantage.
His gimmick may not have changed very much, but his matches do. They aren't predictable, aren't boring, and aren't just 'fillers'. Just because he's still the same Shawn Michaels he was then it terms of gimmick doesn't give a reason he couldn't beat Undertaker, and doesn't give a reason the Undertaker is better.

Changing your gimmick helps you stay relevant. You realize the Undertaker could have wrestled the last ten years without changing his gimmick once and still be over. The man changes his gimmick so he stays on top of the business and this is why people don't get sick of the Undertaker the way they get sick of Flair, Hogan, Trips, HBK, and hell even Austin now. The Undertaker is trying to stay ahead of the curve and he's very, very in touch with the way the fan base moves. Gimmick changes had more variety and moves to the wrestler. So the premise of this tournament is physical primes with all of the knowledge they have. The Undertaker has evolved ever since he came to the WWE, where Michaels has had the same basic moveset since 1996, therefor Taker has more knowledge and therefore Taker beats HBK.

Don't get me wrong, I love HBK and I don't want it to sound like I don't, but he doesn't stand a chance against the Undertaker here. If this were flipped and the matches were different, Big Show vs. Michaels and Taker vs. Benoit, then guess who I vote to win, Michaels without an afterthought. This happened last year with Michaels vs. Taker. Michaels squashed Raven, but Taker struggled with Terry Funk, and Michaels got the win. It's the same situation this year, just in role reversals. Taker benefits in this match from having an easier match.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

What the hell?! 24-43, Taker's favor? Are you people blind?! Look at the logical nature of the situation.

2nd match of the night. Yes, Shawn Michaels would've been winded by his match against Chris Benoit. However the Undertaker would've also been taken to the limit with his match against the larger sized Big Show, in an E.C.W. style setting.

Now then, look at the long view of everything. Unless this match is happening AT Wrestlemania, then the Undertaker really doesn't have a chance. Because outside of Wrestlemania, the Undertaker normally doesn't show an unstoppable nature anymore. He hasn't in a very long time. Meanwhile, Shawn Michaels goes out each night, regardless if its televised or not, and puts on the best match he can. Thereby giving Shawn the edge regarding that.

Undertaker definately has the size advantage over H.B.K. but that doesn't always mean the bigger they are, the better they are. Shawn has speed and quickness on his side, and when looking at these two from previous matches, it seems to me the speed and quickness help Shawn win the match. In fact, has Undertaker EVER defeated Shawn Michaels, simply because of his power?

Another thing that Shawn has an advantage of over the Undertaker is stamina. Yes, the deadman in his day showed no signs of wearing down. But what Undertaker are we exactly using for this match? Because on one hand.. there was the Taker of old, who destroyed his opponents within a matter of minutes, and had absolutely no signs of weakness. Then, we have the Taker of today, that seemingly gets easily dropped in a match that isn't held on a Wrestlemania stage.

I think all Shawn Michaels has to do, is use the Savage logic over Vader. Hit and move. Stay away from the reach, and if you do get grabbed, fight your way free.

Shawn Michaels shouldn't be losing this match. And I fail to see how Undertaker is even this far ahead, unless as I've said.. people are somehow factoring in that this match is held at a Mania type event.

 

[Shocky]

What the hell?! 24-43, Taker's favor? Are you people blind?! Look at the logical nature of the situation.

2nd match of the night. Yes, Shawn Michaels would've been winded by his match against Chris Benoit. However the Undertaker would've also been taken to the limit with his match against the larger sized Big Show, in an E.C.W. style setting..

The matches are under basic rules, so the ECW rules are thrown out at this point. I said before, Shawn Michaels has never had an easy match with Chris Benoit, the Undertaker, minus one time, has dominated the Big Show each and every time they have wrestled. The Undertaker is a machine that takes Super Heavyweights out almost at Will. Chris Benoit would probably tear Michaels apart. Like I said earlier, if you honestly believe that in one night Shawn Michaels can take out a prime Chris Benoit, and then have enough to take out a Prime Undertaker, you maybe the one that's blind. Now if Benoit fought Taker, this match would be reversed and I would have no problem voting for Shawn Michaels.

Now then, look at the long view of everything. Unless this match is happening AT Wrestlemania, then the Undertaker really doesn't have a chance. Because outside of Wrestlemania, the Undertaker normally doesn't show an unstoppable nature anymore. He hasn't in a very long time. Meanwhile, Shawn Michaels goes out each night, regardless if its televised or not, and puts on the best match he can. Thereby giving Shawn the edge regarding that..

Undertaker definately has the size advantage over H.B.K. but that doesn't always mean the bigger they are, the better they are. Shawn has speed and quickness on his side, and when looking at these two from previous matches, it seems to me the speed and quickness help Shawn win the match. In fact, has Undertaker EVER defeated Shawn Michaels, simply because of his power?..[/QUOTE]

What exactly is Shawn Michaels record as of late in big time matches? Outside of Vince McMahon, he hasn't won a big match at Wrestlemania since 2003. Summerslam, again, he beat Vince McMahon in 2006, but lost to Hogan the year before. Both guys are at the point of their careers where they are using their names to put other guys over, so I don't see an advantage for Michaels.

On the flipside, has Shawn Michaels ever beaten the Undertaker based solely on his speed and agility? Shawn Michaels has one pin fall victory over the Undertaker, and that was thanks in part to Kane laying the Undertaker out. Every match these two have had, Michaels has left the worse for wear. He was a bloody heap after Hell in the Cell and needed to be carried out by Triple H and Chyna, and the Casket Match the Deadman broke his back and put him out of action for four years. Shawn Michaels speed and agility is quickly negated by someone liek the Undertaker. The Undertaker isn't the typical big man, he's the best big man ever. Shawn does his dancing routine, and the Undertaker will just punch him in the mouth.

Another thing that Shawn has an advantage of over the Undertaker is stamina. Yes, the deadman in his day showed no signs of wearing down. But what Undertaker are we exactly using for this match? Because on one hand.. there was the Taker of old, who destroyed his opponents within a matter of minutes, and had absolutely no signs of weakness. Then, we have the Taker of today, that seemingly gets easily dropped in a match that isn't held on a Wrestlemania stage...

Again, what about the Shawn Michaels of today. You know, the one with the matted hair, and exhausted after a twenty minute matchup? We're using the guys in their primes, and too my knowledge, sure Shawn wrestled ONE hour long match, and everyone thinks he's mister stamina, but it's not like the Undertaker has never wrestled more then 10 minutes either.

I think all Shawn Michaels has to do, is use the Savage logic over Vader. Hit and move. Stay away from the reach, and if you do get grabbed, fight your way free.

Shawn Michaels shouldn't be losing this match. And I fail to see how Undertaker is even this far ahead, unless as I've said.. people are somehow factoring in that this match is held at a Mania type event.

The Undertaker isn't a typical big man. The Undertaker knows what you are going to do before you do it. Unlike any of the big men that Michaels has faced throughout his career, the Undertaker's ego never becomes a factor. He's not going to stand over and pose once he has Michaels down. He's going to hurt Michaels, and hurt him bad. It's what the Undertaker does.

People are factoring in that the three times they've wrestled on pay per view, two of those Michaels was left battered, beaten and broken. As far as I can tell, I don't see Kane anywhere, Michaels is done.

 

[FourthHorseman]

Since some people want to bring up 'history'

Undertaker defeated Big Show AND A-Train at Wrestlemania.

Shawn Michaels lost to Benoit at Wrestlemania (with Triple H).


Okay. Here's the reason Shawn is more banged up than Undertaker.

Benoit would focus completely on Shawn's head, shoulders, and back... I wouldn't see Benoit going for a Crippler Crossface on Shawn. I'd see him going for a Sharpshooter. Shawn's back is weak, and his legs can't be in the greatest condition. He is, or has been a hi-flyer, in most regards,for his entire career. Benoit is smart. He'd weaken up Shawn with a huge offense. Of course, Shawn would battle back and win, but like other people have said, he would just squeak by Benoit. Not with a roll-up, or anything, prob. that Sweet Chin Music where he falls on them.

And, someone else brought up outside interference. In all reality, knowing the importance of a tournament like this, Undertaker would attack Shawn after his match with Benoit. While Shawn was laying around, bleeding and trying to catch his breath, the lights would go out, and Undertaker would appear in the ring. He'd prob. just chokeslam HBK, but that would surely be enough to destroy his chances later in the night.

I'm not trying to underestimate HBK...but...It doesn't seem feasible to me that Undertaker would lose this match.

 

[cam2222]

Now in this case we have The Heartbreak kid HBK! The 1st to participate in a Ladder match and sure probably another match, Won 2 STRAIGHT royal rumbles a consecutive time WWE champ and Then We have the Deadman! 15-0 {Soon to be 16-0} at Wrestlemania.. Consecutive WWE champ,Participated in matches for the 1st time such as casket match,Inferno match,HIAC,buried alive and winner of 07 Rumble AGAINST HBK.

Undertaker all the way!