WZ Tourney Semi Final: The Undertaker vs. Edge

[Paradox]

There is no way that Edge should win. Undertaker is a better Edge in every aspect. He has the better technical side, he's no doubt a better brawler, and is tougher then almost anybody. Edge has never beaten taker cleanly, how does that make edge look better in this match?

Edge just beat Austin, arguably the toughest guy to ever walk in a ring. Austin not only never quit in a match and he came back from every type of injury. And still was one of the best. Austin was banged up when he came into the wwf because of his knee's and then had a broken neck. Yes Beniot is tough Nate, but not is tough as Austin.

Your logic for Edge winning is because it's a tournament? Edge just beat Austin, and is going to turn around and beat Taker? Yes I will give you the fact that Beniot is not a push over and that Taker had to fight to win that match. Edge though had the tougher match out of the two. Like I said Edge has never beaten Taker without any interference. So to say that's going to turn and beat Taker clean, after just facing Austin is insane.

Edge is good, he's not the god like wrestler that everyone is making him out to be.

 

[Nate DaMac]

They have both beaten each other. If a person wins clean, more power to them. As a fan, as long as my favorite has his hand raised, I could give a rats ass how it happened. More often then not Edge has hand raised at the end of a match. Does he cheat? Well he is a heel. I mean shit, HHH couldn't beat a well past his prime Scott Stiener clean, does that discredit him? If so than yes you got me. I refuse to discredit a persons victory because he does exactly what he is supposed to. He is a heel. A damn good one too.

 

[Paradox]

They have both beaten each other. If a person wins clean, more power to them. As a fan, as long as my favorite has his hand raised, I could give a rats ass how it happened. More often then not Edge has hand raised at the end of a match. Does he cheat? Well he is a heel. I mean shit, HHH couldn't beat a well past his prime Scott Stiener clean, does that discredit him? If so than yes you got me. I refuse to discredit a persons victory because he does exactly what he is supposed to. He is a heel. A damn good one too.

Yes they both have victories over each other, but Taker has had more victories over Edge then Edge does over Taker. Also Edge never beat Taker in a straight up one on one like this is. He always had help.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Yes they both have victories over each other, but Taker has had more victories over Edge then Edge does over Taker. Also Edge never beat Taker in a straight up one on one like this is. He always had help.

No offense dude, but don't jump into a thread on the 16th page and try to argue with me over shit I have been over. Go back and read my other posts as well as Will's then come up with something original to argue about man. I even said before, I don't give a fuck about clean victories. A win is a win. And there is nothing preventing him from cheating here. I am not trying to be a dick, but I spent all day making my point and stating my opinion. I really don't feel like starting over.

 

[Tenta]

No offense dude, but don't jump into a thread on the 16th page and try to argue with me over shit I have been over. Go back and read my other posts as well as Will's then come up with something original to argue about man. I even said before, I don't give a fuck about clean victories. A win is a win. And there is nothing preventing him from cheating here. I am not trying to be a dick, but I spent all day making my point and stating my opinion. I really don't feel like starting over.

LOL.... Allow this to me, Nate... I've been here all night, basically.

Now then, about your case of using Scott Steiner, I would argue that, yes, you should look down upon him. As a matter of fact... Most of the IWC did. This was during HHH's streak in which he buried any wrestler he could on Raw. His work was deteriorating, and he was relying on burying folks to get himself over. Trips wasn't exactly appreciated here, and we could tell that Trips was way past his prime, as well.

Ok, so we're at a bit of a stalemate here, and I wanted to keep some of my argument for Will.... Thinking about you two going against me is going to be Hell. But anyway, answer me this, Nate... How many times do you believe Edge has used cheating tactics in this tournament?

Because it's like I said, it's only so many times, kayfabe wise, that a heel can go without cheating without getting busted. Hell, even Eddie, the best at cheating, would manage to get himself disqualified. Ric Flair certainly did. as it stands to reason, a heel can only get away with cheating so many times before;

A. It backfires.
B. He's caught and disqualified.
C. He has to go the match clean... And winds up losing.

Such was the case in Edge's match with Taker. He tried using a camera and The Edgeheads. All to no avail. Saying that Edge will cheat implies either that he won't get caught, or for that matter, it will actually work. And seeing who he's wrestled in these last rounds, it's totally probable that he used cheating tactics against both Brock and Steve.

So the question is this, Nate... At what point do his tactics run out?

My answer... Right now.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Damnit I thought you were going to bed. To be honest, I had no part of the IWC at this time. Still, can't believe people wanted Steiner as a champion. Shudder. But ok I will concede that. To be honest, I haven't followed the tourney the whole way. I don't think he had to cheat to win against Lesnar or Raven. Actually I know he didn't, seeing how anything goes in those matches. Sorry. Austin, maybe he had to cheat. Maybe he got a fluke roll up. Or maybe, just maybe, he whipped his ass! If Austin can lose to Mankind clean, Edge can beat him too.

 

[Paradox]

Damnit I thought you were going to bed. To be honest, I had no part of the IWC at this time. Still, can't believe people wanted Steiner as a champion. Shudder. But ok I will concede that. To be honest, I haven't followed the tourney the whole way. I don't think he had to cheat to win against Lesnar or Raven. Actually I know he didn't, seeing how anything goes in those matches. Sorry. Austin, maybe he had to cheat. Maybe he got a fluke roll up. Or maybe, just maybe, he whipped his ass! If Austin can lose to Mankind clean, Edge can beat him too.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You haven't followed this the whole time, and your voting just because you like edge more than taker, and you want to see everyone pissed off? am I right?

 

[Tenta]

Okay, so let me get this straight. You haven't followed this the whole time, and your voting just because you like edge more than taker, and you want to see everyone pissed off? am I right?

Not exactly, paradox. Like Will, Nate seriously does like Edge. This isn't a matter of happenstance, he believes in Edge completely, much like Will. Don't rip him, his convictions are fairly strong.

Now then... where were we, Nate?

Damnit I thought you were going to bed.

Not when there's a good debate still on the table, sir. That wouldn't be me.

To be honest, I had no part of the IWC at this time. Still, can't believe people wanted Steiner as a champion. Shudder. But ok I will concede that.

It wasn't so much as people wanted Steiner... As much as we didn't want Triple H. The fucking Brooklyn Brawler could have taken the title off him, and no one would have said a damn thing. Anyway, where were we?

To be honest, I haven't followed the tourney the whole way. I don't think he had to cheat to win against Lesnar or Raven. Actually I know he didn't, seeing how anything goes in those matches.

In the Raven match, you're correct. But I never mentioned Raven. He went over him clean, considering it was ECW. As for Brock, I'm left to believe that in the matter, regular rules apply, except... Well, there's barbed wire ropes. Generally, no ref is going to believe that someone would cheat by running through barb wire. Yet, there's still ways. Distractions, handing brass knuckles. Theoretically, it's still possible to cheat.

Sorry. Austin, maybe he had to cheat. Maybe he got a fluke roll up. Or maybe, just maybe, he whipped his ass! If Austin can lose to Mankind clean, Edge can beat him too.

Yeah, but Mankind never beat his ass, per se. And hey.... No fair for using my own arguments from long ago. LOL.

Anyway, the moment you're speaking of is a triple threat. Trips weakened Stone cold pretty well in that match. But besides the point. My question is, at what point does Edge, who's presumably cheaten to defeat two foes that more intimidating, and quite frankly, scare Edge, run out of luck? At what point do his cheating ways backfire? It happens to the best of them. Ric Flair got caught thousands of times. Ted Dibiase's been busted. And Edge is nowhere near as subtle as these men.

In short, Edge's luck will have run out, and all of that underhanded sneaking by Edge and allies becomes all for not, as it backfires, and leads to Edge's demise.

It happens so very often in wrestling.

 

[Paradox]

Not exactly, paradox. Like Will, Nate seriously does like Edge. This isn't a matter of happenstance, he believes in Edge completely, much like Will. Don't rip him, his convictions are fairly strong.

I wasn't ripping him, it's just what he said in an earlier post that he so informed me to read again...

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Yeah perhaps you should read the thread before making anymore of these stupid fucking comments, I've posted a couple times as to why Taker would win

Justin, just because you use a lot of foul language, doesn't really mean it forms to make an actual reason why Edge should lose. Or better yet, why Taker should win.

I've also replied to your only legitimate post, at which point I think the most you could reply with was.. "fuck, fuck, fuck, shit, fuck, shit, bitch, fuck".

I suppose looking on the bright side, knowing how to properly say the word fuck will come in quite handy if Edge does end up winning this. I'm sure you'll be doubling it at that point.

Why? it's the fucking truth, and certainly better than any bullshit argument I've read for Edge yet

Once again, Justin, just because I don't use foul language doesn't mean what I have to say isn't better than your bitch fest of an argument.

You do realize any fucker on here could say the same exact thing about any post you've made in favor of Edge in any previous match in this tournament?, kinda funny how you suddenly change the way you look at these matches when all the evidence supports the other guy

Justin, here's an idea - its wild, its crazy, it just might work. Why don't you tell me what evidence best suits this match-up.. and I'll take that evidence, and prove why Edge should win. That way you don't think I'm manipulating the system, or trying to use what works for Edge, then turn around and say it can't work for Taker.

Have I ever said the Undertaker wasn't a good opponent? No. Have I ever said the Undertaker hasn't beaten Edge in the past? No. Does it matter, now? Not to the likes of which you want it to.

This isn't Wrestlemania. This isn't Backlash or Judgment Day. This isn't One Night Stand. This isn't Summerslam. All of those wins and loses mean nothing, other than to say each man has won and lost against the other. Wow, what a stalemate, Justin.

Oh wait, I suppose this is where you'll argue that Taker's won more. So let me just give you some research on the subject, Justin. In the entire record that is Edge/Undertaker, Edge has won more than just twice.

Hes defeated the Undertaker on multiple occasions, by actually pinning him, in Tag team matches, and other various types of matches that have taken place on Smackdown.

So, this is where you reply with.. "But this isn't Smackdown, this isn't a handicap or Tag match."

Well, I'm glad you brought that up, Justin, because I know this. Which is why I also said.. this isn't Mania, Backlash, Judgment Day or any other random Pay per view in which you want to argue Taker's defeated Edge at.

So to say because Taker's won 4-1 in Pay per view matches from 2008.. has ZERO barring on whether he wins here. Why? Because Edge's won just as much, through other matches on regular television shows, in different match types throughout. So I could argue the exact same silly minded, ever so tireless, argument.

Which explains why so many posts have refuted it already

Really, Justin? Really? Show me ONE post thats refuted my opinion of why I think Edge should win.

Even stupidly saying someone has refuted what I was referring to, is basically saying "Will, you can't form your own opinion, unless someone gives you one and tells you thats what you should think."

Really, and honestly, Justin.. just stick to flaming people in the bar room. Thats what you really (think) you do best.

Really Will? It's undeniable? Really?

Yes, yes I quite honestly believe my opinion is undeniable. Because its MY OPINION. Holy shit I wish you people would read what I actually say, instead of just assuming you know what I said.

He won two belts off of him? (Actually only one, ONS had a vacant belt)

Uhm, yes, actually. He's won Two Championships off him. Because he's defeated him twice, in Championship matches to win the title. Regardless whether the title is vacant at the time or not - he still defeated Taker to win the title, so he won the title BY defeating Taker, thus "off" him.

He retired him?

Once again, yes. And that one IS actually indisputable. The stipulation of the match, was "If the Undertaker loses, he's retired/banned/fired". And.. he lost. So you tell me.

Just because he came back, doesn't mean Edge didn't do it. It just means the Undertaker is like every other Wrestler that leaves. He comes back.

Does he have 5 people out there to help him in this match? No.
Does he have a half-conscious World Champion Undertaker laying in the ring with the MiTB? No.

This is the single most flawed reasoning I've ever seen. If you vote for him because he's your favorite, cool. Just don't insult everyone's intelligence with this fluff.

I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. If anything, I think you're trying to insult mine by asking such ridiculous questions that you should've already very well known the answers to, especially since I've explained this several times before in this very thread.

Your passion for Edge on a realistic level from this post is well applauded by me. But that doesn't change the fact that nothing you said has ANYTHING to do with a kayfabe tournament between these two competitors. If you need to understand the meaning of kayfabe, you should look it up.

D-Man, I know you weren't replying to me.. but the reply you did give me was basically you just randomly saying you wanted me to step up, and quit acting silly. So here you go.

You want to base this off of Kayfabe, right? Well first let's just address what Kayfabe really is - to those who don't know.

In professional wrestling, kayfabe is the portrayal of events within the industry as "real." That is, the portrayal of professional wrestling as being genuine or not worked. Referring to events or interviews as being a "work" means that the event/interview has been "kayfabed" or staged, and/or is part of a wrestling angle while being passed off as legitimate.

Kayfabe is often seen as the suspension of disbelief that is used to create the non-wrestling aspects of promotions, such as feuds, angles, and gimmicks, in a similar manner with other forms of entertainment such as soap opera or film. In relative terms, a wrestler breaking kayfabe during a show would be likened to an actor breaking character on camera.

So, with this said.. how can you say the Undertaker would dominate and win in a kayfabe situation, when the very definition of Kayfabe is said to be staged, fake, and all together a suspension of disbelief?

Isn't a kayfabe situation helping Edge more, because based on facts of the Undertaker never winning a KOTR second round type of match.. it shows odds that he'd continue to never win one?

Sure, you can use the argument that the Undertaker has defeated Edge more, but thats not to say Edge can't defeat the Undertaker in general. He has. And can do so, multiple times, again.

But why not, Will?? Oh, I know why... because it completely destroys any defense argument you have in favor of Edge defeating the Undertaker. How convenient that you want to take this extremely important factor out of the picture?

Just like I told Justin, I'm telling you.. I have NO CLUE what people base these stuff off of. Some base it off entire careers. Some base it off high-points in 'said' careers. Some even base it off the Superstars tights.

So, D-Man, please inform me what logic and information you're using - so I can dispute it, and prove you wrong. I'd be way more than happy to. That way, you don't feel jaded, cheated or wronged in thinking I used info for Edge, but said it couldn't be used for Taker.

In a kayfabe world, Undertaker owns Edge.

Once again, this is an opinion, and not even a very good one. (Sorry, it's just not) You're biased in saying the Undertaker would "own" Edge, when the simple truth is.. Undertaker hasn't even dominated Edge, in any of their contests. Much less "owned him".

And before you, or anyone else for that matter, tries to say he has dominated Edge.. I urge you (all) to look up the definition of that word.

Better yet, let me give you a rough definition. It means to completely control. Something, Taker hasn't done.

Each of their matches have gone back and forth, with the Undertaker (in Pay per view matches, mainly and only) getting the victory in the end. He hasn't controlled or dominated any of those matches, however, and one could even say in the Hell in a Cell match, the Undertaker was heavily beaten and only barely came out on top - largely in part to needing to end the feud, alone. (there's your kayfabe logic, D-Man)

He's owned him during MANY encounters in the past that have already been researched throughout this thread.

And Edge has "owned" the Undertaker in MANY encounters in the past, that people don't wish to count - because it doesn't fit their format. Whats your point again? This is yet another biased, one-sided argument of the same "smoke and mirrors" logic you believe I'm using.

The difference between you & I.. I've fully explained the Undertaker's victories and explained each one. You won't even acknowledge Edge's, and instead choose to give off the false belief that the Undertaker has "owned" Edge. Which is a fabrication and a very big one, at that.

Many posters can sit here, pull the wool over out eyes, kick up the dust, and whip out their smoke and mirrors to distract everyone from the eminent truth (just like Will has done above and continues to do so)... the Undertaker has been victorious in most of their one-on-one encounters.

I never once said he wasn't. You're now placing words in my mouth, and trying to make people believe I've lied. Show me, any one of my 16 (+) posts that I've made in this thread.. where I'd said the Undertaker hasn't won in most of their one-on-one encounters.

All I've ever said, that even comes remotely close to this argument, is that Edge has won one-on-one encounters as well. (which he has) And people try to use the claim that he cheated, or had help.

Well, duh, he was a heel. What do you expect a heel to do? Play fairly? Follow the rules?

This is kayfabe history between the two, and it is undisputed.

How is it undisputed? In kayfabe, the Undertaker has won at Wrestlemania, (which surprises NO ONE) retained his Championship a couple weeks later, wrestled to a count-out or draw, lost a month later and was retired, was brought out of retirement from a vengeful Wife, and won a feud ending gimmick match.

In kayfabe, the Undertaker hasn't won ONE actual match that doesn't mean anything. This contest, if put in kayfabe logic, is a meaningless match that only advances the winner in a Tournament. It doesn't add to a feud, or end a feud. It doesn't win or lose anyone a Championship.

And in kayfabe, the Undertaker has never advanced in these style tournaments, further than the 2nd round. Which is what this would be considered to be.

Congrats, you just helped me prove through kayfabe logic, the logic YOU want to use, why Edge should never lose this match.. and why the Undertaker should never win this match. Well done.

Other posters like Will (sorry to call you out, bro) try to pull this ridiculous defense out of their posteriors, stating that this matchup should never be determined by past encounters between the Taker and Edge.

All you calling me out is doing, is gaining my attention enough to put you back in your place, which is what I'm currently doing, in my opinion.

Once again, find me one post in which I've said people can't use that argument? I've merely said I'd rather they didn't.. because Edge has won, just as much, especially since you'd then have to count television matches. Fuck all, you might as well start grabbing House show results too.

But here is the end-all, be-all question.. to this stalemate of logic.

"If someone wins in the past, does that mean they're guaranteed to win in the present?" Yes or No. No grey area.

The answer you'll come up with, 100% of the time, is No. Because you can't logically prove that just because the Undertaker won before, that he'll always and ever win again.

Once again... smoke and mirrors. They're afraid that people will look at facts and make a decision from there the way that they should... by looking at the past in a way that history should repeat itself.

So look at the past, Edge - in 2000 & again in 2001, when he was a mere Tag team Wrestler.. defeated the Undertaker, when he was a Main Eventer. Why has no one ever brought this up? It was on an additions of Monday Night Raw, and Smackdown.

I suppose those don't count though, because Edge wasn't yet in his prime, right? So a guy not yet IN his prime, defeats a Main Event "so-called Legend", and it should be blatantly ignored. Okay then.

If the readers of this thread do not look at things that way, they are just kidding themselves.

No, D-Man, you're kidding yourself if you think your one-sided biased logic in thinking the Undertaker is doing all this "owning" is real.

When someone bets on a football game, a horse race, or some other sports event, they do their research before betting on anything. They determine their bets by looking at how their team (or horse) has done in the past against their current opponent and they make a bet from there. No one in their right mind would stick with their team if they already lost to their opponent 3 times already.

Those are ALL great examples.. for sports that don't have scripted winners and losers. Congrats, now go back and look at what I replied to Ricky with.

Explain to all the people who've lost thousands, of millions on betting on the "sure-fire" winner, just because those individual teams have won more in the past. This is the worst logic you could've used, because it shows the holes in your argument.

Just because you've won before - DOES NOT MEAN you'll always win in the present and future. How hard is that for you to understand, just curious? Because you're doing a great job at being oblivious to it.

So why are all of you sticking with Edge?!?

VOTE ALL THE WAY!!!

I'm sticking with Edge, because even with him being my All-time favorite - NO ONE has proven to me why I shouldn't even think for a moment that he could or should lose. And until someone proves me something, that I can't with a shadow of a doubt dispute or argue.. I'll continue to back Edge, and prove why he is the better guy, in my opinion.

If prime goes by when your was pushed the most I would say Taker's was 1990-1994 he had an undefeated streak that was one year long won and if edge's cheap shots still count as wins in your book Will then so does Taker beating prime Hulk Hogan(he was heel at the time after all).
Edge's Prime is right now because he is bieng pushed to the moon as a heel so I'd say original Taker, who kicked out of 2 DDT's by Jake the Snake Roberts and that was what he did he just sat up after everything and even survived a visocus assault with Chloroform (this is Kayfabe remember), would destroy Edge and probably take 3 spears atleast (since current old taker, who took 2 and won, is weaker than he was in 1990-1994)then Tombstone him and win.
Vote Taker.
There I did it.

This was one big cluster, you should really use the space bar - it can be your friend.

So, firstly when was this mysterious 1-year Undefeated streak. I need proof of this. I'm not going to say it isn't true, but until you prove to me that it actually is by giving me a date to a date. I think its a bit fabricated.

Secondly, if the Undertaker's prime was between 1990-1994, then how could you not just instantly give Edge the win right here, right now?

From the dates you listed of Taker's prime.. he beat all of WHO exactly? Hulk Hogan. Thats honestly it. Ric Flair, maybe? Yokozuna, sure. Outside of that.. he had Mania matches against a who's who of weaker opponents who had no business being in the ring with him.

Snuka: Past his prime, on his way out. In fact, wasn't this Snuka's last real Pay per view match in the Company? So how much of a threat could he have really been, if they never used him elsewhere?

Jake Roberts: Yet another individual who was on his way out of the Company, and before he left he put over the Undertaker in a meaningless match.

Giant Gonzales: Another side-show attraction, brought in specifically because no one else in the business could make the Undertaker look worth a damn at the time. Gonzales didn't even lose by pinfall to the Undertaker at Mania, and this is one of the first victories Taker has added to his "streak" that I still think is bogus.

In 1994, he was out for over half the year. Some prime.

Now, as for Edge.. his prime, if you're using it by the logic of being pushed heavily.. started back in 2004. Thats 5 years and counting for a prime w/ Edge, to 4 years (with one of those years, showing him to have missed the majority of the time) to the Undertaker.

Don't you think it speaks volumes to say Taker only had 4 years worth of a prime, when Edge has had 5 and is still going?

It really shouldn't matter who you like better, you're auppose to be voting for who you think is the better wrestler, whether you like them better or not, and in this match (as well as the last) Edge is clearly not better, people are just voting based off of blind love instead of looking at all the facts which point toward a Taker victory,

Holy shit, Justin, just stop its becoming pathetic at this point.

Your whining and complaining is one thing in the bar room, but now you're crying in here, too. Its sad and pathetic. It truly is.

You're also being the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. You begin in saying it shouldn't matter who your favorite is, when you yourself voted for your favorites over others in this tournament.

You then go on to claim Edge isn't better than Austin, Lesnar or Taker.. when its a pure opinionated statement. No pure fact to it. So to say we're voting off our blind love.. is to look like a fool in not admitting to you, yourself, voting with your blind hatred.

So quit whining, bitching and moaning already.

Further more it's rather insulting IMO that so many people can't bother to even make one post in favor of their favorite wrestler, personally for next years Tourny, I'd like to see something done differently with the voting, I'd like to see the people who post and make an argument for who they are voting to have their votes count double (there vote from the poll will get counted, plus their post will get counted as a vote as well) I realize this would make a lot more work for Shocky, but I think it would also lead to lot more people posting instead of just waiting a few days for the polls to open up adn then blindly voting for whoever is popular at the moment, also I should add that I think this should just be done starting with the final 8

I sincerely hope this is you calling out EVERYONE and not just the individuals who've voted for Edge. Because let me give you a little research note.

In the Edge/Austin match, I think it came to 173 people that voted. Out of those, 28 people from each side voiced their opinion on who should win. One of those individuals even accidentally voted Austin, but meant it to be Edge.

So obviously, Edge has more active supporters than his opponents have to this point. I'm not saying more people haven't voted and voiced for Taker, but I'll conclude that once this round ends.

Win or lose, I do agree that more people should get in on the arguments and the debating. But if they don't, they don't. This tournament is meant to be fun.. and people (like you, ironically) who bitch and moan about someone not winning, or someone else losing.. ruins the mood and puts everyone else in a down mood.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Paradox, thanks for going back and catching up a bit. Did you see the Bar Room threads when Austin lost to Edge? Fucking Epic. I was kinda joking about all that though. I didn't follow the tourney until I read something Will posted in the Bar Room. And yes, Edge is one of my favorites, moreso than Taker. Back to Tenta. Go look up a barbed wire match, anything goes usually. And yeah I ripped the Mankind thing off of you. I actually watched that match as a youngen. I think if Edge were to finally slip up, it would be in the Finals. Not in the Semis.

 

[Tenta]

Paradox, thanks for going back and catching up a bit. Did you see the Bar Room threads when Austin lost to Edge? Fucking Epic. I was kinda joking about all that though. I didn't follow the tourney until I read something Will posted in the Bar Room. And yes, Edge is one of my favorites, moreso than Taker. Back to Tenta. Go look up a barbed wire match, anything goes usually. And yeah I ripped the Mankind thing off of you. I actually watched that match as a youngen. I think if Edge were to finally slip up, it would be in the Finals. Not in the Semis.

Fair enough statement. However, I do have, in my power, that Edge has skated by cheating before against Undertaker. I know you'll take it as he's more likely to get away with cheating. I'd say that the Undertaker is far less likely to fall for it, and to have Edge throttled by the point The Edgeheads come to do their bidding. As it stands, I'm exhausted, and await the storm that is you and Will together. Should be good times.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

Okay.

When Liger beat Michaels, that was interesting.

When Brock Lesnar lost, despite my misgivings about him, that was interesting.

This is a #$%$ing travesty. I pray to all that is holy that the ONLY reason that Edge has even 75% of these votes is out of raw fanboyism. I can accept "Edge is my favorite" a lot more than anyone ACTUALLY believing that in this straight up match that Edge has a prayer in hell of winning.

Fuck Edge. Vote Taker. Before its too late.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Okay.

When Liger beat Michaels, that was interesting.

When Brock Lesnar lost, despite my misgivings about him, that was interesting.

This is a #$%$ing travesty. I pray to all that is holy that the ONLY reason that Edge has even 75% of these votes is out of raw fanboyism. I can accept "Edge is my favorite" a lot more than anyone ACTUALLY believing that in this straight up match that Edge has a prayer in hell of winning.

Fuck Edge. Vote Taker. Before its too late.

And here I was, on my way to actually debating someone who has an opinion.. and stumbled upon this crap. Really? More hypocrisy?

This is yet another shear case of "Please vote for anyone other than the person I just don't want to see win. I'll come up with any amount of ridiculous crybaby antics to make you think I have an actual point."

You say he wouldn't have a prayer in hell of winning a straight up match. What makes you think it'd be played out, fairly? Edge is obviously being considered to be a heel. So why couldn't he cheat to win? I'm not saying by interference, or none of that nonsense.. but actual straight up one-on-one cheating. It can be done, he has the ability.

Oh, and one last thing.. you know all this "Fuck Edge, Vote *insert name here*" crap.. how is that even doing anything other than spamming? You didn't even say why you felt Edge should lose, or why Taker should win. You just ran your mouth, and spouted off with more spam.. in trying to desperately gain more votes. Pathetic. Maybe if you tried actually proving a point.. you'd get those votes, ever think of that? I guess that'd require thinking though. It seems all people like you, including yourself, want to do these days is whine, bitch and moan. So good luck with that.. it seems to have helped greatly these past 3 rounds.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I can't believe this.... I honestly can not believe this. Not for the fact that Edge is going over in this match, because as I've stated before, Edge is a great wrestler. But I simply don't understand why Edge is going over a man whom The Undertaker has definitely beaten, in a one-on-one match, decisively. Will, you've done a terrific job placing Edge to this point, and admittedly, I helped in the matter of Steve Austin, something I even wonder about now in hindsight. But I seriously can allow no more of this. This has to end here.

I'm more than approving of anyone who can knock Edge off by any other logic than "But he isn't the best, I hate him, hate him, hate him!" I welcome you to try.

But just know this.. I've worked my butt off getting Edge this far. Not without the support and help from every single individual who's voted Edge, but I do hope that some amount of anything I've said thus far has opened people's eyes. I won't go down quietly, and as shown by the poll currently - neither, will Edge.

Will, I understand what you mean by stating that The Wrestlemania match, in effect, was a specialty match, but I don't agree by any stretch of the means that it was a specialty match. Is the Undertaker undefeated at Wrestlemania? Well yes, but that doesn't make it any more of a specialty match than it already is. The match was a one-on-one contest, between two superstars, and The Undertaker defeated Edge cleanly in the middle of the ring. Arguing that the submission move he used was a choke is irrelevant. It wasn't until after the match that Vickie Guerrero decided the move was illegal, and thus, by the standards of the match, it was a defeat for Edge, right in the middle of the ring. Arguing that just because the Undertaker is unbeaten at Wrestlemania, this match becomes a specialty match is irrelevant.

Wrestlemania is a perfect example to use, and I encourage you to attempt to. But in doing so, you must look at the facts of the situation and the surroundings.

First; The Undertaker's streak out-weighed that of the actual Heavyweight Championship they were competing for. Taker has made his career off one thing, and one thing alone.. Wrestlemania, and his streak at 'said' venue.

Second; The Undertaker didn't cake-walk through that match.. and it can be easily argued both ways, that if the official was in the right place, at the right time.. Edge could've just as easily won, before the Undertaker finally did.

All this match proves, is that the Undertaker's streak is to be kept intact, because thats all his legacy and career is anymore. And on that note, thats why the Undertaker shouldn't win here. This tournament isn't Wrestlemania. And him losing here won't damage his legacy. Which at this point is the only reason he hasn't lost at Mania.

Third; Within this match, many people will have you believe that Edge was torn apart and dominated. Show me where? He wasn't. And infact, Edge took the fight to the Undertaker in a way, the likes of which very few if any one else, has. Did he lose? Yes. Would he always? No.

To say that because the Undertaker has won multiple times in single's matches in the past.. says he should and/or will win here, is an opinion that has no weight. So much so, that people using other sports analogies have been proven deadly wrong on what happens when you assume just because someone has more wins over their opponent.. it doesn't mean they'll win again.

That would be like saying that if Goldberg wrestled anybody at the Bash at the Beach, that it should be a specialty match.

If Goldberg's entire career was based off a Streak, (at a sole Pay per view) then yes. Wrestlemania to the Undertaker is very similar to T.L.C to Edge. Why? Because its what they're good at. Its where they're practically unbeatable.

It is the only match that we have between these two that is applicable to the match we currently have on our hands right now. We are not dealing with a Hell in a Cell, nor a TLC match, but a one-on-one contest in the which the better wrestler prevails. The Undertaker already has prevailed in this situation, and quite frankly, there's no way that Edge has won a match with Taker without a little bit of help from Vickie, La Familia, or any other source.

I'm not saying Edge can only win from interference. And if I did, I'm sure I'd have 20 random people jumping in and saying something like interference doesn't count, this tournament is straight one-on-one encounters, you cheated.

But to say Edge couldn't win a single one-on-one encounter is ludicrous, mainly because he has before. Did he do so when the Undertaker was worn down, and beaten up on? Sure did.. but remind me again what Chris Benoit did to Benoit?

Unless they played shuttes and ladders, or candyland.. I doubt the Undertaker is exactly healthy. And there is nothing in the rules that claims this match wouldn't have instantly started the instant Benoit finished taking his anger out on the Undertaker from losing. (Hey, do I need to remind you of Benoit's temper? You know he has one)

I'm sure people will bitch and moan that that argument is a bottom of the bucket argument, and in some form it is.. but I'm still using it, because people can't disprove it to not be valuable.

Sure, it says Edge can't win "fairly", but once again.. hes an Ultimate Opportunistic heel, who's sole purpose is to find and pick apart the weaknesses of his opponents, in the cheapest ways possible.

What's that, you say? La Familia can get involved here? Well, yes, but from a kayfabe standpoint, I'd argue that Edge has used La Familia at least twice already in this tournament. The standard protocol is that when a heel is not sure if he can beat the other wrester, he will use the aid of his allies.

Or he'll begin to use other methods of attack, that could involve sneakiness, dirty tactics, and foul play in general.

Whats that, he could be disqualified? Well yes, he sure could.. if he was stupid enough to do all these underhanded things IN FRONT of the official, but this is (afterall) Edge, we're talking about. You know him, he's the guy who'd hook the panties on his own Mother, just to get a tainted victory. And he'd do so calculating enough, to where the official couldn't see it happening.

He was in a match against Brock Lesnar, in which part of what makes him effective, the ropes, was cut away from him. No way he doesn't go over Brock without a little bit of help. He also went over Steve in a manner that even I, one of Edge's biggest supporters last round, allowed that he made some help to go over Steve. The logic stands that a heel surely can't go over thrice cheating, because the odds are highly in the favor of a disqualification occurring.

The Lesnar match didn't happen within the realm of this tournament. I think Justin argued this, and through all his foul language, I think I seen the statement of something along the lines of.. Well, I doubt anyone is going to be the same a day or two after just having been in one of those matches, either. GREAT POINT, FLAMER!

And it works wonders.. except for the slight argument that the Undertaker wrestled for 1 full hour, and no one knows how long the Barbwire match went on.. but I doubt highly it was even half that time. So to say the Undertaker couldn't be just as worn down, and broken apart.. especially by a guy HE should've never beat, in Sting, is ludicrous.

And as I've stated before, there has never been a case where Edge went over The Undertaker without some form of assistance.

2000, 2001. If you're counting regular one-on-one matches.. I'd have to do even more research, but the fact is.. Edge has defeated the Undertaker, in Tag team matches back during those times.. without interference or help. Edge & Christian have defeated the Rock & the Undertaker, as well as the Undertaker & Kane.

In single's matches, in between those Tag team's feuding, Edge has also defeated the Undertaker. But no one wishes to use those arguments.. I think because it shows Edge winning, but thats neither here, nor there.. because I can't find footage of it - just a website that keeps archives of results.

I take that back. I think I seen a video on Dailymotion or Youtube, of the Rock/Taker v. Edge/Christian match.. in which E&C won. But once again, people will throw it out because apparently a win is a win for the Undertaker, but Edge can't have the same luxury.

For those of you that The Undertaker hasn't fared well in King of the Ring style tournaments... Obviously you've never witnessed The Undertaker's one match as being a member of the King of the Ring. There was heavy interference on the part of Kama, which allowed for Mabel to go over Taker. The Undertaker had Mabel dead to rights in the match, and without Kama's help, there's no way to tell exactly how the Undertaker would have done in his following matches. And besides that, Mabel is exactly the type of opponent, as a matter of fact, the only type of opponent, that has given the Undertaker trouble.

A win is a win. Mabel defeated the Undertaker, went on to win the KOTR and in the record books it won't say..

"Mabel d. Undertaker: Because a shit load of people fucking screwed Taker over."

Which we'll go into now.... As we build

Why The Undertaker Must Go Over Edge

You see, while foes like Mabel, Kane, The Great Khali, and other sort of individuals give The Undertaker trouble, there's one thing you must factor in; these men are all giants. The only men to decisively give The Undertaker trouble are wrestlers that are massive. Opponents who are extremely tall, extremely fat, or flat out monsters. While it's made The Undertaker's career to fight these gargantuan men, it's also been the only true struggles in the Undertaker's career. Will, I understand how much you love Edge, but even you must concur that Edge is no Giant himself. No, as a matter if fact, if anything, wouldn't we have to characterize Edge as a manipulative heel, and more or less a scientific wrestler? I mean, that's not to say that Edge is exactly a technician. Oh, if that were the case, I could be very well be fucked. But above all else, Edge is a man of above-average height with above average technical ability, who happened to get into the position that he's in by scheming his way to the top, and taking the opportunist's route. And a man like The Undertaker makes mince meat out of foes like that.

Okay, this is where I'm gonna stop you. The Undertaker hasn't had more trouble against Larger athletes than smaller ones. Its the smaller ones who've destroyed the Undertaker more times, because they've systematically learned how to.

Kurt Angle, Randy Orton, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels.. all of those individuals have defeated the Undertaker in one-on-one situations. All of those individuals are so similar to Edge, its not even funny.

So to say the Undertaker has more trouble against bigger opponents, is not entirely true.

Need evidence?


A cold, calculated heel, even more so than Edge, but in a very similar manner. And The Undertaker dispatches of Jake, whom would never be the same.

Jake Roberts is no where near the heel Edge is. And anyone who believes Roberts is a more cold, calculating heel is blowing smoke up mine and their own ass.

Roberts was barely even relevant throughout his time in the Company. He was a career mid-carder, who had meaningless feuds with individuals that went on to become something 10x greater than he'd ever be. Roberts claim to fame was carrying around a Snake. End of discussion on that.

Oh, as for the match.. couldn't help but notice it was at Wrestlemania. And on that note, it was against an opponent (Roberts) who was on his way out of the Company. Why would Roberts have won, through kayfabe standards with that understanding?

[youtube]xv0P2nu0Lcc&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]9soMlIOb5f8&feature=related[/youtube]

This man was as manipulative as they come, and if no one minds me saying this, he's a man that should be coming out of the TNA Bracket. A better wrestler, and just as manipulative.

Okay, from following your footage I'm assuming you'd like to base the Undertaker that Edge is facing.. as the slow moving, no selling version, is this correct?

Because otherwise, all I gathered from this match is Mr. Perfect has a weak chair shot, and Flair did what he wanted to do.. which was retained his Championship. Now, this, is a chair shot.

The only logic I can use against the slow moving version of the Undertaker, is that Edge would win how every one else always won over him.. by countout. Just get him far enough away from the ring, he won't beat the count back.

Stupid, quite and even "I" agree its ******ed to use.. but it is what it is, and I've seen it happen to that version of Taker before. He gets easily distracted, and an opportunist like Edge would capitalize on the cheap victory.

Again, manipulative heel.... And he was so similar to Edge, they actually put the two together in a tag team.

This is where your logic backfires. Randy Orton has defeated the Undertaker in high profiled Pay per view single's matches. So if Edge is so similar, then surely he can do the same thing. And to my knowledge, the only Pay per view single's match the Undertaker holds over Orton (that isn't a gimmick) is on the Mania stage - where Orton was just as close to Edge, with defeating him.. but fell victim to Taker's sole legacy.

This tournament doesn't take place at Mania.. thus, the Undertaker would lose based off this argument.

Oh, and there is one more name that I'm forgetting...

..... Wait, that name doesn't fit, does it, JohnTenta4HOF?
Wrong!

You see, The Undertaker took part in two feuds over the course of 1996. One, of course, was with Mankind, in which he got the better of, and the other was with a rather freakish individual. One that extremely controversial, yet manipulative. Hell, he was able to convince Mankind that he was his mommy. How much more manipulative do you get? He knew that he couldn't beat The Undertaker without some help, so he sought the services of Mankind. That man was Goldust.

How did being Manipulative work for Goldust, you ask?


Now, granted, Edge is a far better wrestler than old Goldy here, but then again, same height, weight, style, and mindset of Edge. And he winds up with an L in a regular match.

Edge and Goldust might be of similar height, weight and mind-sets.. but they're completely opposite characters. Goldust was a career mid-carder, who was only designed to grab the audiences attention. Like Doink the Clown. His character was flawed in that of never being the type of character to be taken seriously enough to win a major feud, let alone match.

Edge is no where near Goldust in this situation. So you factor in the manipulative situation, sure.. but you have to take into account Goldust never beat the Undertaker through kayfabe.. because Goldust wasn't built up to be half as great as Edge has been built up to be.

And while we have good old Mickey in the room with us, let's ask for his input in the matter. You see, these two have both wrestled The Hardcore Legend. One got a past his prime, gassed wind bag, who really wasn't all to serviceable in the ring, really. The other got an extremely good incarnation of the man.

Let's compare some more matches, people!


Yes, Edge does wind up getting the W here, but not without taking some serious damage from The Mickster. Some people say this is where Edge proved to be a main eventer. I say it was a decent match at Wrestlemania between a pretty good wrestler and a man who was a mere shell of the actual wrestler he use to be.

Now I could use the Hell in a Cell match, but I know you, Will. I know exactly what you're going to say;

"That's a specialty match"

Which is exactly why I'm not taking that match, though it does prove just how sadistic The Undertaker is, and I'm going to use their match at In Your House: Revenge of the Taker.



He took on that exact same man, in what I'd consider his prime wrestling wise, or pretty damn near close, and demolished the man. Edge got the weaker of the versions and struggled, while Taker pounded away at Mankind. Undertaker went against the better wrestler, and won.

Funny how you took one of the very few matches the Undertaker's won against Mankind, as a focus point. Need I remind you that Mankind holds more victories over the Undertaker, than vise versa? Need I remind you, that Mankind completely did get into the head of the Undertaker, to the point that it caused Taker to lose half of those matches?

Edge has gained abilities from Mick Foley, as well. So just think of that. Edge, with Mankind's mind games.. mixed with Edge's own abilities.. will match anything the Undertaker has. It'll rattle the 'Deadman' to the point of getting himself Disqualified.

Also, to discount Edge's victory over Mick Foley is a bit much. Once again, a win is a win. No one looks at how weak and very underaverage Taker's WM opponents have been, with exception of roughly 5. Yet Taker gets way more than enough credit for that streak.

Not only that, but this match is in Houston. Edge isn't in Toronto anymore, ladies and gentleman, he's right in the heart of Deadman Land. The Undertaker has taken out the biggest names in Houston, such as Randy Orton, Triple H, and Shawn Michaels, in Houston. That's some pretty good mojo to have coming home. That, plus on a big event, the home boy usually goes over in kayfabe matches. Also, for your argument that it takes a face and a heel to make the tournament finals, from a kayfabe standpoint, you could make the argument that Chris and Bret can both be heels. The only man that's been a face through his kayfabe heights.... Well, that'd be The Undertaker.

I was waiting on you to use this theory. So, because its in the Undertaker's hometown, with the odds stacked heavily against Edge.. that means hes surely screwed, right?

Wrong!

Summerslam 2006: Edge v. John Cena. I've already posted the video once before, but to give a summerary of why this proves Edge would win.. is just this.

The match-up took place in Cena's hometown. The rules of the match were simple. If Edge got counted out, or disqualified, he'd lose the match as well as the Championship. So he was up against a wall, with everything stacked against him, in his opponent's hometown.

And he came out victorious. Because he manipulated the system, found a way to cheat even against the odds, and came out with the victory. No reason to think if he did that before, he couldn't do it again.

Will, I wish you all of the best of luck if Edge does go on. I have a feeling if he goes over here, he'll win this tournament. But I'll do all in my power to make sure that doesn't happen. The Undertaker is the sole reason I'm a wrestling fan. And I will back him to the gates of Hell. Will, I invite a response, as you're very aware how much I love a good debate. And I also welcome debate from anyone else. NateDaMac, I'm looking directly at you, sir. And anyone else that wants to have a spirited chat, I'm all for it. Please, don't let this be solely a Will and Mac debate. I want more.

Vote Taker.

Oh, and just to piss you off, Will...

[youtube]b48KMughfYU[/youtube]

lol That doesn't piss me off, mainly because once again - it was the Mania match that I feel was one-sided and obviously in Taker's favor without Edge even having a kayfabe chance in hell. This isn't Mania.

All in all Will, if Edge loses he loses. I don't want it to happen, I hope it doesn't.. but this is my final thought on the matter. (Directed at EVERYONE ELSE, not you Will.)

If Edge loses, I want it to be because people voiced their opinion on why - like JohnTenta4HOF here has done. Not because "Its just gotta happen that way", because thats the dumbest fucking logic of them all.

And please, for the love of everything. STOP WHINING AND COMPLAINING! Its a fake tournament for sakes, just get the fuck over it. And how you can even whine and bitch, then try and demand people to vote against Edge intentionally in these bitch threads is beyond me. How does that prove Edge isn't still the better man? That just proves the lot of you complained, bitched, moaned and whined so much.. that enough people finally had enough of your shit - and voted for the sake of shutting the lot of you the fuck up.

This is NOT me flaming anyone in general. Its just me saying.. if Edge is gonna lose, then let him lose because he should.. not because you're sick of him being in the tournament - all because each of your own favorites have fallen by the way-side. I've stuck by Edge and debated my ass off as to why he should win. If even half of you have done the same a little more often, in backing up whoever else.. instead of wasting time complaining, maybe Edge wouldn't have gotten nearly this far.

So in the end.. I'm not forcing anyone to vote for anyone specifically.. but I do sure hope Edge wins. Because I've worked my butt off for him to, not for it to be undone just because a bunch of ball ass babies wanna have their way.

VOTE EDGE!​

 

[Tenta]

Will, I believe we're both certain I wasn't going to go to bed. It's going to sound like I mark to you... But I couldn't wait to hear the argument. And you didn't disappoint one bit. It's fantastic. It gives me all that I could hope to fight with, yet also leaves some areas tightly compacted. I have to make some concessions... But certainly not without bringing up some new points...

What, you think I saved everything for the first round? No, no, I know you, Will. This is going to be quite a few rounds. I came prepared...

I'm more than approving of anyone who can knock Edge off by any other logic than "But he isn't the best, I hate him, hate him, hate him!" I welcome you to try.

But just know this.. I've worked my butt off getting Edge this far. Not without the support and help from every single individual who's voted Edge, but I do hope that some amount of anything I've said thus far has opened people's eyes. I won't go down quietly, and as shown by the poll currently - neither, will Edge.

And neither will I back down, sir. My pride, and my appreciation of the work of one Mark Calloway simply wouldn't allow it. So let's get this show on the road.

Wrestlemania is a perfect example to use, and I encourage you to attempt to. But in doing so, you must look at the facts of the situation and the surroundings.

First; The Undertaker's streak out-weighed that of the actual Heavyweight Championship they were competing for. Taker has made his career off one thing, and one thing alone.. Wrestlemania, and his streak at 'said' venue.

For Edge, perhaps.... which brings up quite the source for a new topic to start with Edge upon....

Edge's pride. You see, Edge isn't the low life some would make him out to be. No, he's a man who thinks very highly of himself, and isn't afraid to make deals to boost his ego.

Evidence? Consider when Edge was offered a match against John Cena at Unforgiven, 2006. Edge is in the midst of arguably his best World Title reign, and loving every second of it. His girlfriend's Womens Champion, and Unforgiven is taking place in his hometown of Toronto. What could be better? How about banishing your arch rival to the other promotion. That's exactly what Edge foolishly agreed to against John Cena in a TLC match. Edge didn't have to... John had already used his rematch clause at SumerSlam. So why did Edge take the match? Ego and pride. Yes, those are the two things that drive this man. Alas, his pride cost him the WWE Championship, in a match that he believed was to the best of his abilities.

This match? It's against the Tournament Champion from last year. In Taker's hometown. If Edge wins this, he can taste the title. If you're arguing that Edge's nerves of "The Streak", and the desire to break it fueled his loss at Wrestlemania 24, then consider the scenario I've just layed out. Quite tempting for Edge, isn't it? And once pride takes a hold of Edge... It winds up being his downfall, in some way or form.

Second; The Undertaker didn't cake-walk through that match.. and it can be easily argued both ways, that if the official was in the right place, at the right time.. Edge could've just as easily won, before the Undertaker finally did.

And I could just as easily argue that with an official in the right position, Edge gets disqualified for using the TV Camera, and loses. There were multiple times both men were in danger of losing. What matters is Taker won at a point that was just right for him.

All this match proves, is that the Undertaker's streak is to be kept intact, because thats all his legacy and career is anymore. And on that note, thats why the Undertaker shouldn't win here. This tournament isn't Wrestlemania. And him losing here won't damage his legacy. Which at this point is the only reason he hasn't lost at Mania.

So the argument is that The Undertaker's only saving grace is Wrestlemania? His Championships mean nothing, nor does the countless names of wrestler's he's beaten? That's all The Undertaker is? I could very easily argue that Edge's legacy is MITB ladder matches. He's won more off of capitalizing off of them, and has built a niche of using them at opportune times. And I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have my niche be one-on-one matches, rather than a ladder match. Especially in this sort of environment, and especially in this tournament

Third; Within this match, many people will have you believe that Edge was torn apart and dominated. Show me where? He wasn't. And infact, Edge took the fight to the Undertaker in a way, the likes of which very few if any one else, has. Did he lose? Yes. Would he always? No.

Oh, I'll be the first to state that Edge's performance in that match was astounding. Still, however, a loss counts merely as a loss. There is no such thing as moral victories in wrestling. Edge can tell himself that he gave it his all, but in the end, all you can say is that Edge lost that match.

And on that note, consider this... Edge gave everything he had into that match. This was going to cement his legacy. And even then, he couldn't come through in the clutch when he needed to. Whether or not Edge had a great outing, all it proved is that even when Edge offers his all into the match, he simply can't beat Taker in a one on one contest.

To say that because the Undertaker has won multiple times in single's matches in the past.. says he should and/or will win here, is an opinion that has no weight. So much so, that people using other sports analogies have been proven deadly wrong on what happens when you assume just because someone has more wins over their opponent.. it doesn't mean they'll win again.

And don't get me wrong, i won't use said analogy.

However.... There's usually a bit of doubt in every wrestler's mind. Something that pulls at them, telling them what to feel at that moment. And if Edge looks over that tape of WM 24, and sees that he gave all he could to The Undertaker, and still came up short, it will resonate in his soul. It will give him the jitters, and it will make that much more nervous walking into Houston.

It's a very simple mind game, Will. And who is the master of mind games? That's right, that would be The Undertaker.

If Goldberg's entire career was based off a Streak, (at a sole Pay per view) then yes. Wrestlemania to the Undertaker is very similar to T.L.C to Edge. Why? Because its what they're good at. Its where they're practically unbeatable.

And this I'll consent to you. The Undertaker goes into another gear at Wrestlemania, Will. But consider this;

Is that because of The Undertaker's mindset... Or is it his opponents? Is it the same belief that The Undertaker has his opponent beat, simply by the mind games he plays? The sad fact is, The Streak is a mirror, an illusion. It's nothing more than a pile of wins. No, it takes having a set intimidation of those wins, and of the Undertaker, that makes The Undertaker so dangerous.

And as we've seen before Will.... Edge is quite afraid of The Undertaker.

Evidence?

[youtube]ndrM-oGA2l8[/youtube]

The Streak by itself is meaningless. However, with the effect it has on an opponent's psyche, coupled by the general fear for The Undertaker. You saw the look on Edge's face. He's just as frightened as anyone else by The Undertaker.

But to say Edge couldn't win a single one-on-one encounter is ludicrous, mainly because he has before. Did he do so when the Undertaker was worn down, and beaten up on? Sure did.. but remind me again what Chris Benoit did to Benoit?

Probably just as much, if not less, than Stone Cold Steve Austin did. Did you forget who Edge went up against last round? I didn't... Jesus, that was the most difficult argument I ever had to make. Even so, Steve Austin is just as tough, if not tougher, than Chris Benoit

Unless they played shuttes and ladders, or candyland.. I doubt the Undertaker is exactly healthy. And there is nothing in the rules that claims this match wouldn't have instantly started the instant Benoit finished taking his anger out on the Undertaker from losing. (Hey, do I need to remind you of Benoit's temper? You know he has one)

... Um, hello, Edge wrestled The Texas Rattlesnake. How much more angry do you think it gets? He's the most ornery son of a gun the WWE has to offer. If you think Chris gets upset, wait to you see what good ol' Stone Cold does.

Sure, it says Edge can't win "fairly", but once again.. hes an Ultimate Opportunistic heel, who's sole purpose is to find and pick apart the weaknesses of his opponents, in the cheapest ways possible.Or he'll begin to use other methods of attack, that could involve sneakiness, dirty tactics, and foul play in general.Whats that, he could be disqualified? Well yes, he sure could.. if he was stupid enough to do all these underhanded things IN FRONT of the official, but this is (afterall) Edge, we're talking about. You know him, he's the guy who'd hook the panties on his own Mother, just to get a tainted victory. And he'd do so calculating enough, to where the official couldn't see it happening.

You make it seem as if three things are not possible;

1. That Undertaker has no clue to work as a heel. Fact is, he's been heel. He started out as a heel. You think he doesn't understand the heel mentality?

2. That Undertaker hasn't seen Edge's antics before. He's felt them multiple times. So who's not to assume he's done some studying, and that perhaps, he won't fall for them?

3. And I've already argued this one before... That Edge's heel tactics will actually work. In kayfabe, ut stands to reason that at some point, amidst all of the cheating, sometimes, the cheating blows right up in the wrestler's face. It's happened to so many heels over so little an amount of time. And I'm sure it's happened to Edge many times, as well.


You're next point I'm just going to concede, because you make a valid point, and at five AM, I honestly just think you're right.

2000, 2001. If you're counting regular one-on-one matches.. I'd have to do even more research, but the fact is.. Edge has defeated the Undertaker, in Tag team matches back during those times.. without interference or help. Edge & Christian have defeated the Rock & the Undertaker, as well as the Undertaker & Kane.

In single's matches, in between those Tag team's feuding, Edge has also defeated the Undertaker. But no one wishes to use those arguments.. I think because it shows Edge winning, but thats neither here, nor there.. because I can't find footage of it - just a website that keeps archives of results.

I take that back. I think I seen a video on Dailymotion or Youtube, of the Rock/Taker v. Edge/Christian match.. in which E&C won. But once again, people will throw it out because apparently a win is a win for the Undertaker, but Edge can't have the same luxury.



A win is a win. Mabel defeated the Undertaker, went on to win the KOTR and in the record books it won't say..

"Mabel d. Undertaker: Because a shit load of people fucking screwed Taker over."

I chose to lump your arguments together into one matter, about Mabel and E&C, namely to say this; neither times were we dealing with a kayfabe strong Undertaker. No, this Undertaker was far weaker as a wrestler in both forms, and here I'll consent to you, he was probably weaker than Edge. But again, we're dealing with kayfabe heights, and to me, Undertaker's is greater than Edge's.

Okay, this is where I'm gonna stop you. The Undertaker hasn't had more trouble against Larger athletes than smaller ones. Its the smaller ones who've destroyed the Undertaker more times, because they've systematically learned how to.

Ok, let's see the names you've piled up here:

Kurt Angle,

I'll grant this one. Then again, though, Edge is no Kurt Angle.

Randy Orton,

Taker eventually got the upper hand on Randy.

Bret Hart,

Bret has yet to beat Taker cleanly. As a matter of fact, at The Royal Rumble, 1996, Taker had bret dead to rights, before Diesel interfered in the match.

Shawn Michaels.. all of those individuals have defeated the Undertaker in one-on-one situations. All of those individuals are so similar to Edge, its not even funny.

I'm sorry, but the only clean one on one match these two had showed Taker going over on Shawn. Either than that, Shawn always needed the help of Kane to pull off the victory, especially Hell in a Cell, in which Shawn was beaten to a bloody pulp. And the only other match these two had went to a no-contest. I'd give the edge to Taker.

Ok, it would appear none of the guys I used had any effect on you, so how's this guy work for you?

Again, both these men wrestled this superstar. Taker had Trips closer to his prime. Taker was absolutely no where near his prime. And lo and behold... While Edge has yet to pin Triple H.... the same can't be said For The Undertaker.








And if anything, you will agree that Triple H is very much like Edge. Opportunistic, sadistic, conniving. And look where that got him?

Funny how you took one of the very few matches the Undertaker's won against Mankind, as a focus point. Need I remind you that Mankind holds more victories over the Undertaker, than vise versa? Need I remind you, that Mankind completely did get into the head of the Undertaker, to the point that it caused Taker to lose half of those matches?

You and I have very different feels regarding this feud. Yes, Taker did have early struggles against Mankind, losing at KOTR and Summerslam. He would then beat Mankind in a buried alive match, get buried by ten people, resurrect himself, and return as The Lord of Darkness.

Undertaker would not lose to Mankind ever since that point in a one on one match. At Survivor Series, he destroyed him.

At Revenge of the Taker, he destroyed him.

At the 1998 King of the Ring.... Do I really need to say it?

True, Mankind took advantage of a kayfabe weak Undertaker early on... But once Taker was resurrected, Mankind stood no chance to him, really.

Edge has gained abilities from Mick Foley, as well. So just think of that. Edge, with Mankind's mind games.. mixed with Edge's own abilities.. will match anything the Undertaker has. It'll rattle the 'Deadman' to the point of getting himself Disqualified.

Disqualified? When did you ever see Mankind beat The Undertaker by DQ? No, you see, if anything, you should be arguing that the mind games confused The Undertaker... To a certain extent. And once he had figured out Mankind, he was toast. What's not to say something similar won't happen with a foe he knows very well, in Edge?

Also, to discount Edge's victory over Mick Foley is a bit much. Once again, a win is a win. No one looks at how weak and very underaverage Taker's WM opponents have been, with exception of roughly 5. Yet Taker gets way more than enough credit for that streak.

Agreed. But again, the Streak is a concoction of his opponent's psyche.

I knew the Home Field argument was a bit weak, that's why I put it at the very bottom end. And for that matter, I didn't put much stock into it.

And he came out victorious. Because he manipulated the system, found a way to cheat even against the odds, and came out with the victory. No reason to think if he did that before, he couldn't do it again..

I'll echo what I've said before. If you're consenting your guy may have to cheat, and that he couldn't win the match straight up, doesn't that speak volumes to the confidence you have in your wrestler?


And the rest is excess, and doesn't exactly pertain to our debate. However, your kind words are wholeheartedly accepted, and this was a fucking beast to tear through. You do not have word forts, but rather logical arguments that beg to be debated. And thus, hopefully, you'll come with a response soon.

I can't wait.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Will, I believe we're both certain I wasn't going to go to bed. It's going to sound like I mark to you... But I couldn't wait to hear the argument. And you didn't disappoint one bit. It's fantastic. It gives me all that I could hope to fight with, yet also leaves some areas tightly compacted. I have to make some concessions... But certainly not without bringing up some new points...

What, you think I saved everything for the first round? No, no, I know you, Will. This is going to be quite a few rounds. I came prepared...




And neither will I back down, sir. My pride, and my appreciation of the work of one Mark Calloway simply wouldn't allow it. So let's get this show on the road.

Okay, so I have about roughly 25 minutes in which I can reply to you. Otherwise I might not get another chance until after the round is over. At which case, whether Edge or the Undertaker wins, it'd be a mute point. So let's not waste anymore time. Here we go.

For Edge, perhaps.... which brings up quite the source for a new topic to start with Edge upon....

Edge's pride. You see, Edge isn't the low life some would make him out to be. No, he's a man who thinks very highly of himself, and isn't afraid to make deals to boost his ego.

Evidence? Consider when Edge was offered a match against John Cena at Unforgiven, 2006. Edge is in the midst of arguably his best World Title reign, and loving every second of it. His girlfriend's Womens Champion, and Unforgiven is taking place in his hometown of Toronto. What could be better? How about banishing your arch rival to the other promotion. That's exactly what Edge foolishly agreed to against John Cena in a TLC match. Edge didn't have to... John had already used his rematch clause at SumerSlam. So why did Edge take the match? Ego and pride. Yes, those are the two things that drive this man. Alas, his pride cost him the WWE Championship, in a match that he believed was to the best of his abilities.

This match? It's against the Tournament Champion from last year. In Taker's hometown. If Edge wins this, he can taste the title. If you're arguing that Edge's nerves of "The Streak", and the desire to break it fueled his loss at Wrestlemania 24, then consider the scenario I've just layed out. Quite tempting for Edge, isn't it? And once pride takes a hold of Edge... It winds up being his downfall, in some way or form.

All in all, wouldn't pride fuel Edge to drive harder, knowing that he's lost to him before - to study more, to learn more, and to look at tape to find even more advantages? You'd think so.

And if anything, look at the times Edge has went up against someone to prove something. Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit.. when he lost to them, he went back to the drawing board, studied a bit harder, and ended up finding the ways around what cost him before.

The Undertaker had a 4-1 sweep (if this were Hockey, mind you) in 2008 on Pay per view matches. So what makes you so confident that Edge won't take every bit of knowledge he's collected from how the Undertaker moves, works, thinks and drives.. and put that much more collective effort into finding a way to defeat him?

Wrestlemania - he lost because he wanted to do it alone. To prove he didn't need help. And he lost, because it was their first real and true one-on-one match-up.

Backlash - I don't honestly recall it, I just know Edge lost it. How, unsure. I'm almost positive he tried having La Familia help him out, at which case obviously in his own mind Edge likely felt he could crutch and fall back on them. It was that belief that I feel cost him.

Judgment Day - It was at this point, I believe Taker was in Edge's head and I give you that. However, with each passing match - Edge grew more aggressive, not less. Edge grew more hungry, not less. With each loss, it only added fuel to the fire that would be Edge continuing to study, and figure out a way to win.

That lead us to Edge's victory at One Night Stand.. through his match, his terms. Now I know what most have said.. this isn't a T.L.C match, and I know this.. but the Undertaker's career is NOT constantly on the line each and every night, either. So can someone please explain to me.. why when the man (Taker) finally had a match in his own mind he HAD to of believed was a "must win".. he failed? You can cite the 5-on-1 crap all you want, but look at the evidence of the previous two/three encounters.. Taker should've seen it coming, because it'd already came before and he stopped it.

So, with that said.. don't you think it falls more on Edge finally cracking the code (so to speak) in learning what does and doesn't work against the Undertaker?

Well, the season sweep as I mentioned went to Taker, and it was indeed because of their final major encounter at Summerslam.

However, even in defeat, can you name so much as ONE other individual, who has taken that much aggression out on the Undertaker and not showed any fear what so ever.. in the Undertaker's playground? Not even Lesnar, who did defeat Taker in HIAC, did so without running scared in the beginning. Edge did something no one else had done.. he stood up to Taker, and went after him.. instead of ran from him.

And I could just as easily argue that with an official in the right position, Edge gets disqualified for using the TV Camera, and loses. There were multiple times both men were in danger of losing. What matters is Taker won at a point that was just right for him.

Taker did win, indeed. And a victory is a victory. Which is what I remind everyone about, when they bring up how much Edge's shouldn't matter because of how they were earned.

Why? Because he was a heel and followed his own tactics to victory? So, how is that any different? Its not. Edge has won, just like the Undertaker, and a win is a win.

So the argument is that The Undertaker's only saving grace is Wrestlemania? His Championships mean nothing, nor does the countless names of wrestler's he's beaten? That's all The Undertaker is? I could very easily argue that Edge's legacy is MITB ladder matches. He's won more off of capitalizing off of them, and has built a niche of using them at opportune times. And I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have my niche be one-on-one matches, rather than a ladder match. Especially in this sort of environment, and especially in this tournament

The point I'm trying to prove to you the most is this.. when you bring up to people what they think of the most, when they think of the Undertaker and Edge. You'll likely get the following responses.

The Undertaker: The guy is undefeated at Wrestle-fricken-Mania! He can also do mystical stuff, which is amazing.

Edge: He's the king of the Ladder matches, and constantly finds ways to win World Championships without even trying to earn them. He was that dude that slept with Matt Hardy's girlfriend. (it can be used, because it became a storyline that helped in part to make Edge a success, afterall.)

The overall ending to this is just this; when people think of the Undertaker, outside of Wrestlemania's streak.. they see him as a side-show attraction. Someone with a nifty entrance and cool supernatural powers during promos and build-up segments.

When they think of Edge, they're going to think of how he constantly cheats to win Championships and major matches. But the thing to take out of that, is how they'll remember him as being the guy who constantly cheats in any form or fashion - to win.

Oh, I'll be the first to state that Edge's performance in that match was astounding. Still, however, a loss counts merely as a loss. There is no such thing as moral victories in wrestling. Edge can tell himself that he gave it his all, but in the end, all you can say is that Edge lost that match.

And on that note, consider this... Edge gave everything he had into that match. This was going to cement his legacy. And even then, he couldn't come through in the clutch when he needed to. Whether or not Edge had a great outing, all it proved is that even when Edge offers his all into the match, he simply can't beat Taker in a one on one contest.

This could easily be redirected to the fact that once again.. the Undertaker KNEW his Career was on the line at One Night Stand. He KNEW that Edge wouldn't be fighting alone, or fairly, and it'd be 5-on-1..

So in a match where the Undertaker knew he had no option for losing.. why was that ironically, the only one major match of their series that year.. that he DID lose? If it wasn't for Vickie, being a vengeful Wife, (through storylines, obviously) Taker's career would be over today.

And don't get me wrong, i won't use said analogy.

However.... There's usually a bit of doubt in every wrestler's mind. Something that pulls at them, telling them what to feel at that moment. And if Edge looks over that tape of WM 24, and sees that he gave all he could to The Undertaker, and still came up short, it will resonate in his soul. It will give him the jitters, and it will make that much more nervous walking into Houston.

It's a very simple mind game, Will. And who is the master of mind games? That's right, that would be The Undertaker.

I don't exactly believe Edge has ever fully been played by the Undertaker's mind games. And once again, you'd have to assume Edge would've felt this very same way walking into One Night Stand.. and yet he won there.

Coming into this match-up, I would imagine Edge wouldn't be the same guy who knew in the back of his mind he'd have back-up. Because here, it "doesn't exist". So he's going to be the guy that beat Mick Foley at Mania, that tore up Shawn Michaels in a Street Fight, that wrestled toe-to-toe with Kurt Angle and won King of the Ring.

He's going to come into the match, and go at the Undertaker.. but know in the back of his mind, if he has to - cheat every chance you get, do everything you must.

Probably just as much, if not less, than Stone Cold Steve Austin did. Did you forget who Edge went up against last round? I didn't... Jesus, that was the most difficult argument I ever had to make. Even so, Steve Austin is just as tough, if not tougher, than Chris Benoit

I'd never discount Austin's toughness, but I think we're looking at two different sides of the spectrum.

Austin is going to brawl you to death, not wear you down. He's going to punch you in the face repeatedly, not work over a single body part all match. Benoit would've targeted something.. so much so, that Taker would be feeling the affects of it heading into this match.

Whereas Austin would've just beat the shit outta Edge, to the point that no one part of his body would hurt more or less than any other. Yet at this point, its adrenaline that kicks in for Edge.

I'm not saying Edge wouldn't be worn down just the same, if not even a bit more. But I am saying.. the Undertaker wouldn't focus like Edge would.. on a weakened body part that was damaged a round prior. Edge would know what was hurting Taker, and target it.

... Um, hello, Edge wrestled The Texas Rattlesnake. How much more angry do you think it gets? He's the most ornery son of a gun the WWE has to offer. If you think Chris gets upset, wait to you see what good ol' Stone Cold does.

At most, Austin would've delivered a StoneCold Stunner to Edge after the match, then left.

Benoit on the other hand.. well, I encourage you to watch the finish to the Rikishi/Benoit KOTR 2000 match-up. Benoit went rabid on Rikishi, even before the match was over. Benoit got himself Disqualified, and continued to beat the living shit outta Rikishi.

There is no reason or logic to believe with as one sided as those votes were, if you take that into account how one man is winning or not.. that Benoit would've knew he was losing.. and just went ballistic on Taker with a chair.

Ok, it would appear none of the guys I used had any effect on you, so how's this guy work for you?

Again, both these men wrestled this superstar. Taker had Trips closer to his prime. Taker was absolutely no where near his prime. And lo and behold... While Edge has yet to pin Triple H.... the same can't be said For The Undertaker.








And if anything, you will agree that Triple H is very much like Edge. Opportunistic, sadistic, conniving. And look where that got him?

You said something in here that stood out.. something about Edge not being able to pin Triple H.

Thats incorrect. Edge has pinned Triple H before, multiple times actually. He's done it in Tag matches, Triple Threats, Handicaps, and possibly even during the 2006 DX/Rated RKO feud in which each individual had multiple single's matches.

I'll echo what I've said before. If you're consenting your guy may have to cheat, and that he couldn't win the match straight up, doesn't that speak volumes to the confidence you have in your wrestler?

Not in the slightest. If Edge has to cheat to win, then I'm all for him doing so because thats the character he is. Hey, no one said Wrestling was fair, or had to be played as such. Its a vicious sport where you either win or you don't. Even you said earlier on, a win is a win.. and there is no victory for losing.

I have the greatest confidence in Edge to win any way he can. Fairly, or otherwise.

And the rest is excess, and doesn't exactly pertain to our debate. However, your kind words are wholeheartedly accepted, and this was a fucking beast to tear through. You do not have word forts, but rather logical arguments that beg to be debated. And thus, hopefully, you'll come with a response soon.

I can't wait.

Will, all together I must say you have made a name for yourself on this forum. You are without a doubt a great debater, and if the Undertaker pulls out this victory - YOU deserve every bit of the credit for him doing so.

I'm sorry I didn't reply to everything you said. I'm already going over my limit on time I wanted to give myself. lol I wish you the best of luck in this, and if the Undertaker wins.. again.. its because YOU just pushed him through. (hoping, that is, that no more stupid bar room crap gets involved. It'd be a real shame.)

 

[Theo Mays]

Man this is tough. Two of my personal favorites here. Taker has beaten Edge and Edge has beaten Taker. Both men put up some awesome battles. And this one is just another classic for them. But this time the Rated R Superstar finds a way to get it done. Whether it be through interference, using a weapon while the ref is down, or managing to get Taker counted out, or even clean. I think Edge gets it done. Edge is opportunistic and he will find a way to beat the Deadman. This isn't WM, so Taker isn't the clear cut favorite. You can't go wrong with choosing either one, both deserve the win, but I feel this is Edge's time to shine and he leaves this match the victor.

 

[Shocky]

Well I guess it's time to chime in on some broad generalizations that I've seen in here, that really should get some sort of addressing.

1. Somehow Jeff Hardy was brought up, and Edge was the only one humble enough to put him over as champion? I says what the hell is that person talking about. Really? Edge put Jeff Hardy over? I fail to see how dropping the title in a Triple Threat match was putting Hardy over. For the true example of putting Jeff Hardy over, see summer of 2002, and the Undertaker making Jeff Hardy look like a million dollars, years before his current push. The Undertaker did more in that one match to put the kid over then anyone has done before or since.

2. The Undertaker's Wrestlemania Streak is inconsequential??? I Mean this is about as silly as an argument as I've read, and I've seen some pretty silly arguments in here so far. Do I really need to go threw the streak to disprove the "guys weren't in their prime argument" on that one.

Wrestlemania 7: Rookie Undertaker vs. accomplished Veteran in Jimmy Snuka, taht's a good win.
Wrestlemania 8: vs. Jake the Snake Roberts just coming off his best heel run in the business (torturing the ikes of Savage and Warrior in the process) Good win for the Undertaker
Wrestlemania 9: vs. Giant Gonzalez. Ok, I concede that this was the first truly awful Wrestlemania opponent.
Wrestlmeania 11: Vs. King Kong Bundy. Again, I'll concede that Bundy was years out of his prime at this point.
Wrestlemania 12: Vs. Diesel. Yes, that Diesel just removed from the longest WWF title run on the 1990's, um yeah, very good win for the Undertaker
Wrestlemania 13. vs. Sid. Beating the WWF Champion in the middle of the ring at the Main Event at Wrestlemania, I'd say good win (considering Sid is the only man to defeat both Michaels and Hart for WWF Titles)
Wrestlemania 14: vs. Kane. If Kane wasn't in his prime at this point, then he never had one. Good win for the Undertaker
Wrestlemania 15: Vs the Big Bossman: Concede the point that this was an out of his prime wrestler.
Wrestlemania X-7: Vs. Triple H. Let's see anyone discredit this match for the Undertaker. Triople H was one month removed from the best match of his career. Again, Very good, credible win here.
Wrestlemania X-8: vs. Ric Flair, Street fight. Granted Ric Flair was out of his prime, but this was by far the best match the man has had the last 15 years of his career. I'd consider this a good win as well.
Wrestlemania XIX: vs. Big Show and Albert. Beating both of these guys in their prime in a handicap, good win for the Undertaker.
Wrestlemania XX: vs. Kane. Again, Kane was in his second monster heel run in the company, and I argue to find Kane any better then at this period in his career. Good win as well.
Wrestlemania 21: vs. Randy Orton. Beating Randy orton in the middle of his legend Killer run and months removed from his first title reign, I'd say this is a good win.
Wrestlemania 22: vs. Mark Henry. Mark Henry goes into the realm of under rated guys, but that's beside the point. The guy was months removed from Main Eventing a big 4 pay per view, if that's not prime, I'm not sure what is. Good win for Taker.
Wrestlemania 23: vs. Batista. Undertaker wins his 2nd world title at Wrestlemania, and becomes the only guy that I know to beat Batista in the ring cleanly. Very Good win.
Wrestlemania 24: vs. Edge. I mean this is obvious. Undertaker wins his third world title, ending Edge's supposed undefeated streak at Mania by making him tap out.
Wrestlmania 25. vs. Shawn Michaels. Yeah, beating Mr. Wrestlemania at Wrestlemania is a bad thing, right...

So out of the supposed myth of over rated guys that Taker has beaten ont he biggest stage of them all, only 3 of those guys were pure crap, the rest were well accomplished guys coming at him. The only two one on one matches Edge has had at Mania was a win vs. Booker T in Toronto, and then tapping out in the Main Event at Wrestlemnaia 24, to the Undertaker.

Pretty much by discrediting the Undertaker at Wrestlemania is in the logn run, discrediting Edge. Edge is on the list of victims, deal with it.

3. The Undertaker is injury prone: I simply don't under stand this logic. I mean seriously, are the Edge fans that one sided, or have selective memory out the ass. The Undertaker has been with the WWE since 1990, and has missed 2 Wrestlemanias, Edge has been with the company since 1998, and has missed 3 Wrestlemanias. The Undertaker takes time off, but Where exactly was Edge in 2003, the first half of 2004, a chunk of 2007, a chunk of 2008? Um, out that's right, mostly due to injury. Edge is one of the more injury prone workers in the business, and to somehow pass judgement on the Undertaker for missing time, but not Edge is flat out laughable.

4. Edge is a more accomplished Champion then the Undertaker: This is complete utter bullshit. When you are a 9 time champion, it also means you are a 9 time loser.

So for arguments sake, lets dive into the Undertaker's title reigns.

1. Vs. Hulk Hogan: Yup He beat Hogan, sure, with Flairs help, but according to Edge fans, a wins a win is it not?

2. vs. Sid: Again, beating the only man to defeat Michaels and Hart for WWF titles in the main event of Wrestlemania is pretty impressive.

3. vs. Steve Austin: Fast count, sure, but the Undertaker becomes the only mant o defeat Steve Austin and Hulk Hogan for the WWF Title, find anyone that has done that besides him, I'll help you out, no one has.

4. vs. Hulk Hogan: That's right, the Undertaker becomes the only man not only to beat Hogan and Steve Austin for the WWF Title, but becomes the only man to take the WWF Title off of Hulk Hogan...twice.

5. vs. Batista: Beating the Animal for his 2nd world title win at Wrestlemania, and becoming one of teh few men to beat batista cleanly.

6. vs. Edge: Beating Edge for his 3rd world title win at Wrestlemania, and just beating him cleanly at that. The Undertaker, along with Steve Austin and Hulk Hogan, is the only man to win World Titles 3 times at Wrestlemania.

And now lets look at Edge and his 9 world title runs.

1. vs. John Cena; MITB cash in. Good thing for Edge, he was able to beat John Cena after he just won a 6 man Elimination Chamber Match: Slow Clap.

2. vs. John Cena and Rob Van Dam: Beat Rob Van Dam after John Cena did all of the damage in the match: Slow Clap

3. vs. The Undertaker: MITB cash in. Way to capitalize on a Steel Cage match with Batista and Mark Henry interference...Slow Clap

4. vs. Batista and the Undertaker: Wins in a triple threat match, again. Slow Clap

5. vs. The Undertaker: TLC match, and essentially a 5 on 1 Handicap match: Slow clap.

6. vs. Triple H and Jeff hardy: Good thing hes screwign the GM and gets put into a match at the end of it to win the WWE title.. slow clap

7. vs. Jeff Hardy: Thank You Matt Hardy...slow clap

8. vs. Raws Elimination Chamber Match: Again, another match the man wasn't supposed to be involved win, but thanks to sleepign with the GM, he gets put into the match...slow clap.

9. Vs. John Cena: Thank You Big Show...slow clap.

And yes, the undertaker doesn't have the accolades of all the various mid card titles that Edge has, you know why, because the Undertaker has always been bigger then those titles. You don't win world titles, and then go to the IC title. It took 8 years for Edge to win his first world title, it took the Undertaker 1.

5. But The Undertaker loses in KOTR type of matches.

let's put into percpective what the Undertaker has done at King of the Ring since 1994.

1994: wasn't on the active roster
1995: Defeated by Mable:
1996: in a match with Mankind
1997: Defended the WWF Title vs. Ron Simmons
1998; vs. Mankind in a Hell in the Cell
1999: defended the WWF Title vs. The Rock
2000: In a WWF Title match
2001: feuding with DDP
2002: defended the WWF title vs. Triple H

Edge's one King of the Ring title came from beating Kurt Angle, a man that wrestled 3 matches in one night, including a street fight with Shane McMahon.

The Undertaker didn't do well in King of the Ring tournaments, because he stopped competing in them because he was bigger then the guys in the tournament. When you are involved in 4 title matches at that pay per view, it's better then being in the tournament.

6: Edge can't beat the Undertaker:

Out of all the arguments, no one has given me any reason to vote for Edge. I see a bunch of smoke and mirrors, a bunch of sugar coated fluff, but at the end of the day, still, Edge beats the Undertaker because... All I see is people trying to discredit the wins the Undertaker has over Edge, and come up with some makeshift reasoning behind why. The fact is, Edge has beaten the Undertaker twice, when others were involved and did the work for him. The Undertaker has beaten Edge 4 times.

The Devil's Triangle, last I remembered, was a legal maneuver. The ref didn't go for the bell when the Undertaker put it on Shawn Michaels at Mania. The move becomes illegal when Vickie wa trying to protect Edge, good thing Vickie Guerrero isn't running this tournament. It's put Edge down before, it'll put him down again.

Regardless of teh winner, I will be supporting the winner of this match over the winner of the other match.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

And here I was, on my way to actually debating someone who has an opinion.. and stumbled upon this crap. Really? More hypocrisy?

This is yet another shear case of "Please vote for anyone other than the person I just don't want to see win. I'll come up with any amount of ridiculous crybaby antics to make you think I have an actual point."

You say he wouldn't have a prayer in hell of winning a straight up match. What makes you think it'd be played out, fairly? Edge is obviously being considered to be a heel. So why couldn't he cheat to win? I'm not saying by interference, or none of that nonsense.. but actual straight up one-on-one cheating. It can be done, he has the ability.

Oh, and one last thing.. you know all this "Fuck Edge, Vote *insert name here*" crap.. how is that even doing anything other than spamming? You didn't even say why you felt Edge should lose, or why Taker should win. You just ran your mouth, and spouted off with more spam.. in trying to desperately gain more votes. Pathetic. Maybe if you tried actually proving a point.. you'd get those votes, ever think of that? I guess that'd require thinking though. It seems all people like you, including yourself, want to do these days is whine, bitch and moan. So good luck with that.. it seems to have helped greatly these past 3 rounds.

Just because I don't blither the same stuff for 17 pages ad naseum doesn't make my post spam. A LOT of people have already said exactly the same things I would have. Half the reason I don't have a 3,000 pt post count is because I don't post in every thread just for the sake of posting.

Most of what you post Will is actually fairly interesting to read. I don't know what happened to you this year, because you didn't act this way in last year's WZ tournament. I had a lot more fun last year with IC 25's campaign for Vader than I did this year.

The arguments I've heard that are pro-Edge are TERRIBLE. I'm sorry, but that sig says it all. Its crappy arguments wrapped in the Word Fort for defense. There are almost no arguments you've said that I could not turn around and directly apply to other Superstars and all I would have to do is change the name.

But the sum of your logic, any heel who has ever cheated to win a victory should take this match.

Even now, you're reaching into the depths of reason. You're personally attacking me for NOTHING. Really? Voting against anyone just so the guy I don't want to win loses? That's not true at all. I voted in previous rounds against some of my favorites because I knew they would lose. So don't give me any of this "previous three rounds" garbage.

The only person in wrestling I have a hatred for is Brock Lesnar, so I abstained from voting in his match with Edge.

So where is this hypcrisy you are calling out?

You're the one raving like a lunatic.

And for the record, don't put "running off at the mouth" in the same statement as "spam". Either is was a long winded spiel, or it was spam. Make up your mind. You're the master at going on forever, after all.

 

[MisterRob]

This was clearly a screwjob finish. So, I guess in the end it did play out realistically, since the heel did win by cheating. Oh the irony of wrestling! I would've voted Undertaker, by the way, unless there was a clear story behind how Edge would've cheated to win. Because there's no way he could've won without cheating. Undertaker would've dominated Edge, otherwise.