Now again I've been having alot of thinking and firstly I wanted to get this off my chest. Clearly in the King of the Ring situation, Bret Hart can still keep ahead of a fresh Jericho, so clearly if that is the case, Edge is fresh against Taker, must be a Smackdown vs. Raw KOTR match, sorted.
Now I've been thinking about this, and been thinking alot. Firstly, who to vote for, now in my opinion, it's an evenly matched situation. We have two guys who are multiple World Champions, decade plus careers, trusted with the face of the company, two guys with the ability to control the fans with their promo skills and ring abilities, masters of their speciality matches (Hell in a Cell/Ladder), adaptable movesets, ring generals, company players, among others.
Right lets get some issues out of hand. Firstly everyone, Wrestlemania issue. Yes Taker is unbeaten and taken Edge out as one of them, but Edge gave one hell of a match. Since the issue of the streak became a feature at Wrestlemania, after Randy Orton, Edge has been the only realistic person who actually made you believe he could Taker. Countering his moves, bouncing out of pin attempts, we knew Taker would win, but Edge lost with alot of respect because he gave it his all. With the issue of 0-3 in his last 3 Wrestlemanias, in two cases one was a submission loss and two were not involving him being involved in the decision. While Taker has not lost at Wrestlemania, Edge has never been pinned, which is credible enough as it is, yes, I know it's about wins and losses for people, but more people remember the pin wins as opposed to the submission, which gives more credit for his loss against Taker, people would write him off quicker had he lost by the 1-2-3. Even ground in my opinion.
With the speciality matches, I would think that where Taker/Mankind's Hell in a Cell is remembered for being a top match of all time, in short it is down to two spots in the match where Mick Foley was the star of the moment, as opposed to Taker. Yes, without Taker, it wouldn't be as remembered, but it was really Mick's moment. The problem I feel is where Taker in HIAC is great, you know that Taker will kick some ass and beat the crap out of guys, I just feel there's some limitation and gets abit of the same old, same old. Just the difference is the ending. Whilst equally people may argue that's the same case for the ladder match with Edge, yes we get some same spots, but there is something fresh that happens with the Ladder matches, hell, if Edge wasn't that good, how the hell was he allowed to win so many ladder matches? Because he always delivers and provides variety, much like how he can win/steal a championship, I think the only variety we've seen for Taker is through a steal via a fastcount by Shane O'Mac, but even then it wasn't about the title, it was about Austin and the Corporation.
I think one point that Will argues rightly is that Taker has little to provide except a guaranteed great Wrestlemania match, the same occurs for Edge, but how many times can Taker do a match, get injuried, comes back, beats the crap out of the guy who injured him, gets to Wrestlemania, repeat. Problem is, unless the opponent for Taker is a serious contender, you know Taker will win, yes, all credit due for having the streak, but it could get dull for many people at some point, although the moment he does lose, we'll regret it, it doesn't help with Taker being a face all the time since coming back as the Deadman, something new and fresh needed?
Fortunately for Edge, where he's had big injuries, he's still put his body on the line in big matches, taking the pain spots where Taker's body would only be able to about a few years back. Edge offers new things to say on the mike, promoting things up to the max, he did manage to carry alot of the Taker feud through his promo skill when Taker wasn't around as much. Edge can make you like him or hate him from the things he says.
If I had to be honest, I am trying not to think about how many wins or losses Taker and Edge have had against each other, especially on the 2008 feud, purely because one was MITB, the other was for the sake of a feud. Wrestlemania, Backlash, Judgment Day, One Night Stand & Summerslam, all of these were based more on the whole idea of Edge & Vickie keeping the World Title off of Taker, it became that more than Edge vs. Taker, it makes the wins and losses nullified except for Wrestlemania which is basically a Taker wins situation, just how. The wins and losses were set to keep kayfabe instead of who was the better wrestler. If I had to go with honesties, I think that they would give a match much like Wrestlemania 24, but I think Edge would win, simply because he can go on for much longer and isn't afraid to put as much of his body on the line, where as Taker can't as much these days bar Old School and his trademark over the top rope leap.
I think I lost myself along the way partly because I semi-distracted by a film I was watching. But I think both Taker and Edge are about equal, albeit what their gimmicks make them different about each other, but I would say that Edge would be able to go over Taker, even in his Ministry, Lord of Darkness, Badass and Deadman phase, had he not been in a feud where the wins and losses were part of the story as opposed to who was better, Edge would be on top. Yes the Deadman is the Deadman and I have alot of respect for him, but I just think that Edge does have what it takes to reach the final. Hell if everyone thinks a deflated Bret Hart can against a fresh Jericho, then surely Edge can beat Taker
