WZ Tourney Semi Final: The Undertaker vs. Edge

[TheOneBigWill]

I bet this is where a lot of people are awaiting some long, "word-fort" post, in which I pretty much make some very convincing statements (which some people would still contribute as "shit") on why everyone should vote for Edge. Well, sorry to disappoint, but the last time I made a great post with several key's to victory - I got one person to man up, find his balls, and actually reply.

So the truth is.. you should vote Edge, because he's just plain better. I don't need to explain it, go read any other fucking thread I've ever posted in on Edge and you should already know it. Don't try arguing, because you won't win. You can run your mouth, you can say I'm wrong, but you'll never be able to prove it, so why you even try is pointless in my opinion.

People felt Raven should've won. HE LOST. People felt Lesnar should've won. HE LOST. People felt Austin should've won. HE LOST. Has anyone truly started to connect the dots and draw a line between them? If so, you'll notice it's a picture of Edge, leading all the way to the Finals - becoming the 2009 WZ Tournament WINNER!

So I suppose I'll actually contribute the bare minimum to this thread.

I noticed a lot of ignorant people claiming to take into account two things. First, that this is the second match of the night. So each man would be slightly worn down more. (Edge a bit more, obviously) Second, that in most of their previous encounters, the Undertaker's defeated Edge.

So, because of taking those two things into account - I'm magically suppose to believe Edge is destined to lose? Rigghh.. wrong.

So, taking silly kayfabe into logic - I'm noticing that typically in KOTR tournaments you get a face and a heel to advance. Well, Bret Hart is your face. And the Undertaker damn sure isn't your heel. So that leaves you with Edge.

But Edge's gonna be more worn down, he's not suppose to win when he's worn down. Riigghh.. wrong. Jericho (as a heel) won back-to-back matches against The Rock, and Steve Austin. Edge has won a KOTR after defeating Rhyno (a guy who many claim has a better speed, and more power) then Kurt Angle. (a Heavyweight Champion, still way above him in logic of prime's) So to say Edge, worn down or not, is destined to lose - is plain and simply ******ed.

SO, next; Undertaker holds a couple extra victories over Edge. Oh noes, the world is coming to an end. People, look up Professional Wrestling. What you're gonna get, is a reference in which it says "a non-competitive professional sport, where all matches are scripted by the promotion's booking staff".

So, whats that tell you? It tells you, the Undertaker defeated Edge more - because he was booked and logically had reason to go over Edge - instead of losing.

How does this factor in? Simple, unless this Tournament is suddenly taking place at Wrestlemania, or is the ending to a feud between these two individuals (again) then the face (Undertaker) WON'T COME OUT - THE WINNER.

This is a match, built around stupid kayfabe logic, that tells you Edge has every way of winning, and the Undertaker has no reason to move on.

Is this stupid to anyone else yet? When it is, just say so - then give me ONE actual reason why the Undertaker SHOULD win. Because to say he should win, just because he's defeated Edge before - isn't a reason. Edge's defeated Taker just as much. (oh, boo-hoo, so he's cheated in doing so - he's a fucking heel, idiots, get over it)

VOTE EDGE & QUIT CRYING!​

Also, when people want an actual reason or reasons, from me, on why Edge should win. I'd be way more than happy to give them. If, of course, your vote isn't already locked in for Taker - because you're upset Edge has kicked your guy out of the tournament already.

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

Isn't the tournament in kayfabe? If it is, then the fact Taker has never lost to Edge cleanly is very important. He's 4-1 against Edge in very high profile matches, and he was never pinned by Edge. He lost to Edge in Edge's specialty match while Edge had Chavo, Ryder, and Hawkins all helping him. Kayfabe wise, Taker does beat Edge, for sure.

 

[klunderbunker]

So, wait. Just because Taker has beaten Edge before in a straight match, we shouldn't think the same thing should happen here? See, Will is going to try to confuse you by not telling you everything. Edge and Taker are indeed 2-2 in their matches. Let's take a look at those matches shall we?

Mania 24: Taker wins clean after no interference, in a standard match with no outside factors.

Summerslam: In the HIAC, Taker beats Edge up. Did Edge get in some good offense? Yes he did. Was it anything close to what Taker did to him? Nope. Taker killed him in there hitting more big moves than anyone should be legally allowed to hit and destroying Edge, sending him to "hell" at the end.

Edge wins title on Smackdown: Yes indeed he does, after a war with Batista in a cage, with Taker leaving for surgery in the living definition of a throwaway match.

Edge wins title at NOC: It's a TLC match and yes Edge wins. Now, let's count how many people it took to win this for the Rated R Superstar: Himself, Hawkins, Rider, Chavo, and arguably Vickie for making it Edge's specialty match, but we'll be nice and say it was just four.

The general conclusion that can be drawn from these four matches is this: Edge has never beaten Taker without help. Why should any sane person believe that Taker would lose when he's fresher than Edge, when he won when he didn't have such an advantage?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Isn't the tournament in kayfabe? If it is, then the fact Taker has never lost to Edge cleanly is very important. He's 4-1 against Edge in very high profile matches, and he was never pinned by Edge. He lost to Edge in Edge's specialty match while Edge had Chavo, Ryder, and Hawkins all helping him. Kayfabe wise, Taker does beat Edge, for sure.

You're sooooo right. My goodness, why'd I never see it before. Well crap, let's just throw in the towel now.

Yeah, no.

Did you even read a word I said, or are you just trying to figure out where the walls are in my word-fort? I JUST got done saying if this is in kayfabe, then there must be a logical reason for someone to progress to the Finals. The Undertaker has no reason. Except being last year's winner, in which case you look at the list of victims Edge has formed for himself - and notching it off with the Undertaker as his next - makes him look deadly and unbeatable for the Finals. (where he'd have his GREATEST chance of losing, period)

I'm so sick of talking in kayfabe, because it's even making ME want to vote against Edge. (I lie, that'd never happen) But seriously - kayfabe is stupid logic. You can't predict it, because you aren't a booker.

Taker won against Edge at Mania. (because he's undefeated there, duh)

Taker retained at Backlash. (because it'd look horrible to have Taker lose that quick, especially without being heel)

Taker defeated/drew against Edge at Judgment Day. (isn't this where he locked on the hold that was illegal, and Vickie reversed the decision?)

Taker lost the title AND HIS CAREER to Edge at One Night Stand. (if Taker is so dominate, don't you think he should've won the one match that logically means the most to everyone - a career match??)

Taker defeated Edge to end their feud at Summerslam. (Edge went to hell, came back and became a Champion - what'd Taker do from this point forward? Oh, thats right - fighting the Big Show in useless battles)

So - if Taker won 4-1 times, why'd Edge still end up a Champion in the end? BECAUSE KAYFABE LOGIC MADE IT SO! Now, explain to me again - how the Undertaker has a chance in hell (literally, Edge's been there, he knows what to deal with) in winning this match?!

When you quit using kayfabe as an excuse, Taker might actually become more of a threat.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

So, wait. Just because Taker has beaten Edge before in a straight match, we shouldn't think the same thing should happen here? See, Will is going to try to confuse you by not telling you everything. Edge and Taker are indeed 2-2 in their matches. Let's take a look at those matches shall we?

Mania 24: Taker wins clean after no interference, in a standard match with no outside factors.

Summerslam: In the HIAC, Taker beats Edge up. Did Edge get in some good offense? Yes he did. Was it anything close to what Taker did to him? Nope. Taker killed him in there hitting more big moves than anyone should be legally allowed to hit and destroying Edge, sending him to "hell" at the end.

Edge wins title on Smackdown: Yes indeed he does, after a war with Batista in a cage, with Taker leaving for surgery in the living definition of a throwaway match.

Edge wins title at NOC: It's a TLC match and yes Edge wins. Now, let's count how many people it took to win this for the Rated R Superstar: Himself, Hawkins, Rider, Chavo, and arguably Vickie for making it Edge's specialty match, but we'll be nice and say it was just four.

The general conclusion that can be drawn from these four matches is this: Edge has never beaten Taker without help. Why should any sane person believe that Taker would lose when he's fresher than Edge, when he won when he didn't have such an advantage?

I love how you make it seem like I'M the one trying to confuse people, when you sugarcoat Edge's victories from the Undertaker's. Well done, KB, well done indeed.

So, Wrestlemania - the place where the Undertaker is just naturally 10 times greater - isn't a factor? It's not even a remote thought in anyone's head? So, NO ONE thought going into that match - that the Undertaker wouldn't just win - because it's Wrestle-fricken-Mania?!

Let's not forget - Edge's had half of these matches he's lost, won, but due to the official being out of it, knocked out, or distracted by a fly buzzing around his head - Edge gets a 2-count, or nothing at all. Am I making excuses? I'm sure you could (and will) claim I am - but I'm not. I'm once again using everyone's favorite friend - kayfabe.

Also, when EVER, have you seen Edge spear someone, then attempt a pin, by laying on them between their legs? (especially males - discounting Tommy's Wife - not you, the other one - you don't have a Wife.) That alone should set up how "kayfabe" and "scripted" the match was. So yeah, Taker wins - but because he was suppose to - because there was a point to it.

WHERE IS THE POINT HERE?! What does the Undertaker accomplish by winning this match? Nothing. A possible repeat? Doubtful.

Edge has defeated vastly bigger names in this tournament than Taker has. Outside of Sting, and Benoit (arguably) who's been big enough in this thing to even dent Taker? NO ONE.. so it stands to reason, if Edge were to win under stupid kayfabe logic - he'd had more to brag about.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'll go with what you said to Hacksaw about why should Taker win. let's factor out all past success, all history, and just go with character vs. character.

There is no way in hell Taker could lose here. Let's see.

Strength-Taker dominates. The guy can lift up people Vader's size and tombstone them. That's an easy win.

Agility-Edge isn't much of a high flier, at least not in his prime. he's a brawler, and for their sizes, Taker easily wins here.

Striking ability-Taker is allegedly the best striker in WWE history. While I'd say this isn't true, Edge is a standard puncher and not much else. Taker's strength and height give him this one else.

Submissions-Has Edge ever actually won anythign by submission? Even if he has, Taker isn't tapping, plain and simple, meaning Edge has to win by pinfall. Considering Edge's big move is the spear, and probaby the worst one in history for those who use it as a big move, I'm really not seeing it as something that's going to put Taker down for more than a two.

Experience-Taker, yet again. There is absolutely nothing Edge can do that Taker hasn't seen before. He's the master of psychology, so the mental game is his as well.

So tell me, how can Edge beat Taker? i still haven't heard a reason for it.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I'll go with what you said to Hacksaw about why should Taker win. let's factor out all past success, all history, and just go with character vs. character.

So, by character vs. character, I fully assume we're still doing this through Kayfabe. So my responses will be in such crappy form. Just a head's up.

There is no way in hell Taker could lose here. Let's see.

No way in hell Taker could win here. I've already told you why.

Strength-Taker dominates. The guy can lift up people Vader's size and tombstone them. That's an easy win.

Bret Hart defeated Yokozuna at Wrestlemania X, Billy Kidman defeated Hulk Hogan on an additon of Monday Nitro, and Edge has defeated the Big Show in a regular single's match on Raw's and Smackdown's before.

What's the point? The stronger guy doesn't and won't always win. Edge doesn't lose just because he isn't as strong. And Edge has defeated the Undertaker before - where'd Taker's strength come into play in those matches? The guy could sit up, remember - why didn't he then?

Agility-Edge isn't much of a high flier, at least not in his prime. he's a brawler, and for their sizes, Taker easily wins here.

Okay, first - in all the previous rounds people wouldn't shut the fuck UP about Edge being a high flier and a cruiserweight type. Now you're saying he's the opposite. Anyways..

How does Taker win, just because you think he's more of a high flier than Edge? Is Edge not quick, either? Can he not more out of the way? Do you think Taker's "Old School" is the new version of a 5 Shooting Star Twisting Corkscrew Plancha?

How does Taker win - because you have an opinion of him being more agile?

Striking ability-Taker is allegedly the best striker in WWE history. While I'd say this isn't true, Edge is a standard puncher and not much else. Taker's strength and height give him this one else.

If this were a boxing match, I might of just shit myself. Thankfully, it's not.

Submissions-Has Edge ever actually won anythign by submission? Even if he has, Taker isn't tapping, plain and simple, meaning Edge has to win by pinfall. Considering Edge's big move is the spear, and probaby the worst one in history for those who use it as a big move, I'm really not seeing it as something that's going to put Taker down for more than a two.

If it's such a horrible move, then the Undertaker is pure shit alone because it's put him down for a 3-count, in multiple single's, tag and other match-up situations.

And yeah, if this were a submission ONLY match, Edge would be fucked and I couldn't even swing shit to make it realistic. (which, mind you, not ONCE in this tournament have I ever said ANYTHING about Edge - that wasn't believable or true - keep that in mind, I speak the truth, others just try to make it sound glorified - like yourself, for example.)

Edge won't win, or even try winning, by submission. He's not an idiot, after all - he's still in this tournament.

Experience-Taker, yet again. There is absolutely nothing Edge can do that Taker hasn't seen before. He's the master of psychology, so the mental game is his as well.

1-2-3 Kid defeated Razor Ramon, Mikey Whipwreck defeated Steve Austin, Edge's defeated Mick Foley.

What's the point? Just because they're ring vets, doesn't mean they can't fall to lesser experienced individuals. And in most cases, this hurts the "ring vets" because they're older, and out of shape.

This tournament is also meant to be played out under the logic both are in their "primes", which means Taker's experience would be no better or worse than Edge's. But, even if it were - I just proved how it won't matter anyways. Next...

So tell me, how can Edge beat Taker? i still haven't heard a reason for it.

Because he can. Why isn't that good enough for you? Over 10 people have voiced how they're picking the Undertaker, because they hate and want to see Edge lose - alone. Thats not a reason, thats a crybaby emotion from a loser(s) who didn't get their way.

Why should "I" be forced to give you actual reasoning, when no one else is giving me any?

But since you asked nicely.. well, you didn't but I make-up thinking you did, I'll tell you.

Edge has defeated some of the all-time top names in the Sport. He's done things that very few others can even lay claim to doing. He's accomplished firsts. He's won many, many Heavyweight Championships. He's made a gimmick that shouldn't of ever been anything good, into something as close to perfect as you can get.

He's taken the ability to "steal" a Championship, and turned it into a concept for everyone else to do. (See Punk)

Edge simply wins when it benefits him the most. This is a case in point, where it'd benefit him the most. Because he'd take him to the finals.

Edge has WON more tournaments than I honestly believe the Undertaker's even ever been in. (that's a rough opinion, by no way, shape or form a fact - but Edge's won at least 2-3) And I know in most tournament situations, Taker is typically eliminated early, often and instantly. Which means he doesn't fit well into the scheme of them. Edge does.

I don't give a shit how out-matched Edge is. In pro wrestling, NO ONE is ever out-matched. Fucking Hornswoggle has won the Cruiserweight Championship. A midget, with little to no skills what so ever. And you're going to sit there, stand or whatever you're doing - and tell me because the Undertaker has been flinging crap with wearing black and sitting up for over two decades, that he's gonna win? Uh-Uh, not even remotely buying it.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I bet this is where a lot of people are awaiting some long, "word-fort" post, in which I pretty much make some very convincing statements (which some people would still contribute as "shit") on why everyone should vote for Edge. Well, sorry to disappoint, but the last time I made a great post with several key's to victory - I got one person to man up, find his balls, and actually reply.

I was contemplating not replying to this and giving no reasoning for my Undertaker vote, as I figured it'd rile you up some.

So the truth is.. you should vote Edge, because he's just plain better. I don't need to explain it, go read any other fucking thread I've ever posted in on Edge and you should already know it. Don't try arguing, because you won't win. You can run your mouth, you can say I'm wrong, but you'll never be able to prove it, so why you even try is pointless in my opinion.

That's a two-way road, mate. I could post all of the accomplishments, entertaining matches, and memorable moments that The Undertaker has had throughout his career and off those claim that he is better than Edge is. On a matter such as that, it comes down to opinion.

People felt Raven should've won. HE LOST. People felt Lesnar should've won. HE LOST. People felt Austin should've won. HE LOST. Has anyone truly started to connect the dots and draw a line between them? If so, you'll notice it's a picture of Edge, leading all the way to the Finals - becoming the 2009 WZ Tournament WINNER!

I don't think Raven should have won, actually. I think that Raven is highly overrated and that just because the match was hardcore doesn't mean he is unstoppable. Raven may have done some sick and twisted things in ECW, but he was facing a much lower standard of competition than Edge.

Edge should have lost to Brock Lesnar, and would have had it not been for the thread in the last five minutes asking for votes that brought him five. Cheap tactics, Edge camp. I'm over that, though. You put a lot of good effort into that. Although your arguments were inflated greatly, you did a good job of convincing people to vote Edge.

So I suppose I'll actually contribute the bare minimum to this thread.

Okay, then.

I noticed a lot of ignorant people claiming to take into account two things. First, that this is the second match of the night. So each man would be slightly worn down more. (Edge a bit more, obviously) Second, that in most of their previous encounters, the Undertaker's defeated Edge.

I'm not sure how you can say that Edge would only be slightly worn down after a match with The Rattlesnake. I have never seen one, one person who hasn't taken a beating in a one on one match with Stone Cold. I also believe The Undertaker would be tired out as well. Typically, after his matches, he looks tired. Benoit is the type of wrestler that grabs on to a limb and doesn't let go until he tears it off. That shoulder of Undertaker has to be hurting him.

So, because of taking those two things into account - I'm magically suppose to believe Edge is destined to lose? Rigghh.. wrong.

Well of course you aren't supposed to believe it. Edge could take on the entire roster of Smackdown and you'd come up with some way for him to win clean.

So, taking silly kayfabe into logic - I'm noticing that typically in KOTR tournaments you get a face and a heel to advance. Well, Bret Hart is your face. And the Undertaker damn sure isn't your heel. So that leaves you with Edge.

I'm doing research on this, but I'm not going to include King of the Rings pre-1990. My knowledge of who was a face or heel is not sharp there.

1991 - Bret Hart vs IRS
1993 - Bret Hart vs Bam Bam Bigelow
1994 - Roddy Piper vs Jerry Lawler
1995 - Mabel vs Savio Vega
1996 - Steve Austin vs Jake Roberts
1997 - Hunter Hearst Helmsley vs Mankind
1998 - Ken Shamrock vs The Rock
1999 - Mr. Ass vs X-Pac
2000 - Kurt Angle vs Rikishi
2001 - Edge vs Kurt Angle
2002 - Brock Lesnar vs Rob Van Dam
2006 - Booker T vs Bobby Lashley
2008 - William Regal vs CM Punk

If I'm looking at this correctly, every match has been a face against a heel. It seems as though you've made a wonderful point, Will. Unfortunately, you haven't. You see, Chris Jericho is a heel. Were he to advance, which he has as good a chance as Bret Hart to, then by your logic, The Undertaker would advance. Since neither Bret Hart or Chris Jericho is in the final, this is irrelevant.

But Edge's gonna be more worn down, he's not suppose to win when he's worn down. Riigghh.. wrong. Jericho (as a heel) won back-to-back matches against The Rock, and Steve Austin. Edge has won a KOTR after defeating Rhyno (a guy who many claim has a better speed, and more power) then Kurt Angle. (a Heavyweight Champion, still way above him in logic of prime's) So to say Edge, worn down or not, is destined to lose - is plain and simply ******ed.

Firstly, Edge is not Chris Jericho. Just because they are both heels does not mean that you can compare his winning against The Rock and Stone Cold in the same night to what Edge is attempting to do. Second, going through Rhyno and Kurt Angle is nothing like Stone Cold and The Undertaker. I'll admit, it was impressive, but it's not the same here.

SO, next; Undertaker holds a couple extra victories over Edge. Oh noes, the world is coming to an end. People, look up Professional Wrestling. What you're gonna get, is a reference in which it says "a non-competitive professional sport, where all matches are scripted by the promotion's booking staff".

So, whats that tell you? It tells you, the Undertaker defeated Edge more - because he was booked and logically had reason to go over Edge - instead of losing.

You can't note Edge's King of the Ring victory and other things of the sort if you're going to discount The Undertaker's victories over Edge. You can't pick and choose elements of kayfabe to suit your needs.

How does this factor in? Simple, unless this Tournament is suddenly taking place at Wrestlemania, or is the ending to a feud between these two individuals (again) then the face (Undertaker) WON'T COME OUT - THE WINNER.

He defeated Edge at Backlash and Judgement Day, which were neither WrestleMania or the end of the feud, but I digress.

This is a match, built around stupid kayfabe logic, that tells you Edge has every way of winning, and the Undertaker has no reason to move on.

Well no, by your logic, if Bret Hart moves on then he doesn't. Of course, if Chris Jericho were to move on, that'd be reason for Undertaker to as well. You said it yourself, "I'm noticing that typically in KOTR tournaments you get a face and a heel to advance.". I don't like arguing that, though. We don't know what the outcome of Jericho and Hart will be, so this is an impossibility to judge by. My reasoning for Undertaker to win this match is that he has won all their other one on one, standard matches. The is no evidence to tell me that Edge could beat him in this match when he has failed three times previous. I've never heard the saying, "Fourth time's a charm".

Is this stupid to anyone else yet? When it is, just say so - then give me ONE actual reason why the Undertaker SHOULD win. Because to say he should win, just because he's defeated Edge before - isn't a reason. Edge's defeated Taker just as much. (oh, boo-hoo, so he's cheated in doing so - he's a fucking heel, idiots, get over it)

I'm counting 4-2 in favor of The Undertaker, in which he won all three standard matches and lost one when Edge's wife booked the match in Edge's favor and three guys ran to the ring. Yes he's a heel and I'm glad he's resourceful, but he couldn't pull that here. He'd be disqualified. To vote Undertaker because he has won all their standard one on one encounters is a perfectly acceptable reason. I'd also go on to add that The Undertaker is stronger, more resilient, has multiple ways to end the match abruptly, etc.

VOTE EDGE & QUIT CRYING!​

Also, when people want an actual reason or reasons, from me, on why Edge should win. I'd be way more than happy to give them. If, of course, your vote isn't already locked in for Taker - because you're upset Edge has kicked your guy out of the tournament already.

If you showed me irrefutable proof that Edge would win this match, not could, would (Anyone could win any match), then I would vote for him. Until then, The Undertaker has my vote.

Edit: Damn Will! You pumped out three more posts for me to reply to already? I'll get them in the morning.

 

[klunderbunker]

Edge only wins when it benefits him the most? When does winning NOT benefit you? I was under teh impression that winning was a good thing.

Anyway, sure Edge could win, but there's no logical reason to think that he would. Taker is just flat out better than Edge is except for one thing: being overrated. Every single attribute you listed off for him, Taker has done and has done more effectively. Anything from gimmick matches to standard matches to lighting matches like he did with Kane as a child, Taker wins here, plain and simple.

 

[Mr. TM]

In each of their primes Edge was a heel, Undertaker was a face. Heels use some risky tactics to win. DQs will not help you advance unless it is your opponent that is RQed. Why can't Edge get Undertaker disqualified? He could use the Edge heads to run in the ring and possibly attack Edge in what seems to be a face turn by Edge during the match. Undertaker then gets disqualified, as Edge lays beaten down by his former partners. Just before the camera cuts away, Edge smiles, sits up, and grabs the microphone to let the world know that he has tricked everyone again. Undertaker then comes back to the ring and hits the tombstone, but it is too late, Edge has tricked the world, and the Ultimate Opportunist moves on.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I was contemplating not replying to this and giving no reasoning for my Undertaker vote, as I figured it'd rile you up some.

I wouldn't go off and create a Bar room thread whining and complaining that he lost, if he does, if that's what you're thinking.

That's a two-way road, mate. I could post all of the accomplishments, entertaining matches, and memorable moments that The Undertaker has had throughout his career and off those claim that he is better than Edge is. On a matter such as that, it comes down to opinion.

Actually though, while everything would be opinion based, it'd be hard to argue that the Undertaker's accomplished more than Edge has in the same time frame of their career's.

The Undertaker is a 19 year vet. He's won 6 Heavyweight Championships, 7 Tag Team Championships, 1 Hardcore Championship and 1 Royal Rumble victory.

Edge is an 11 year vet. He's won 9 Heavyweight Championships, 12 Tag Team Championships, 5 Intercontinental, 1 United States, 1 King of the Ring and 2 MITB cases. Albeit, only 1 was by way of winning the actual match.

Still, that's quite a lop-sided list, in almost half the time, that Edge has made himself as opposed to the Undertaker.

I don't think Raven should have won, actually. I think that Raven is highly overrated and that just because the match was hardcore doesn't mean he is unstoppable. Raven may have done some sick and twisted things in ECW, but he was facing a much lower standard of competition than Edge.

I wouldn't say Raven faced pure crap for opponents, but naturally next to none of them were of the quality that the W.W.F was producing. (If they were, they'd of had higher paying jobs, in a Company that isn't owned by their one-time rival now)

And I actually side with believing Raven is better in that environment than any other. But I still think people over-played how much they felt Edge wouldn't win - just because they felt Raven was vastly superior. That was just plain stupid.

Edge should have lost to Brock Lesnar, and would have had it not been for the thread in the last five minutes asking for votes that brought him five. Cheap tactics, Edge camp. I'm over that, though. You put a lot of good effort into that. Although your arguments were inflated greatly, you did a good job of convincing people to vote Edge.

Well hey now, you can't go complaining to me about sticking up a "vote Edge now" thread, when Sam created one in a section that gets MORE traffic, earlier in the day.

All I did, was copied what the rival was doing first. It's not my fault, my trick worked - whereas my rivals hasn't yet. (Lesnar's last ditch "vote me" thread didn't work, and neither did Austin's)

I will say thank you for giving me credit though on putting up good arguments. I didn't think compliments were within your style.

I'm not sure how you can say that Edge would only be slightly worn down after a match with The Rattlesnake. I have never seen one, one person who hasn't taken a beating in a one on one match with Stone Cold. I also believe The Undertaker would be tired out as well. Typically, after his matches, he looks tired. Benoit is the type of wrestler that grabs on to a limb and doesn't let go until he tears it off. That shoulder of Undertaker has to be hurting him.

My only problem here is, people are going to naturally complain that Austin "tore Edge a new ass".. whereas they'll turn around and claim Taker barely suffered in his "squash" against Benoit. Both are complete and total fabrications and utter trash arguments.

I'm not saying Edge wouldn't of went through hell to win, but look at the history of ANY Wrestler who's went through a harder line of opponents. Typically, that Wrestler wins over the "more rested" of opposition.

Need proof? Mr. Ass, 1999 KOTR. He went through Mabel, Shamrock, Kane then X-Pac just to win the KOTR. That's damn impressive for a guy coming off being a "Tag Team specialist".

And you can't even begin to sit there and tell me Edge isn't better than the former Stylist of the Beautiful People.

Well of course you aren't supposed to believe it. Edge could take on the entire roster of Smackdown and you'd come up with some way for him to win clean.

LMAO True. This brings back memories of the Smackdown vs Raw video game, when they'd have that one gauntlet match where it was You against the entire roster of the game, over and over and over until you finally lost. Ah, great times. I'd use Triple H and just pedigree people over and over to get a KO instantly.

I'll have to see if Edge is in that version of the game, if he is (no reason why he wouldn't be) I'll have to use him and see if this logic of Edge vs the entire roster could work.

I'm doing research on this, but I'm not going to include King of the Rings pre-1990. My knowledge of who was a face or heel is not sharp there.

1991 - Bret Hart vs IRS
1993 - Bret Hart vs Bam Bam Bigelow
1994 - Roddy Piper vs Jerry Lawler
1995 - Mabel vs Savio Vega
1996 - Steve Austin vs Jake Roberts
1997 - Hunter Hearst Helmsley vs Mankind
1998 - Ken Shamrock vs The Rock
1999 - Mr. Ass vs X-Pac
2000 - Kurt Angle vs Rikishi
2001 - Edge vs Kurt Angle
2002 - Brock Lesnar vs Rob Van Dam
2006 - Booker T vs Bobby Lashley
2008 - William Regal vs CM Punk

If I'm looking at this correctly, every match has been a face against a heel. It seems as though you've made a wonderful point, Will. Unfortunately, you haven't. You see, Chris Jericho is a heel. Were he to advance, which he has as good a chance as Bret Hart to, then by your logic, The Undertaker would advance. Since neither Bret Hart or Chris Jericho is in the final, this is irrelevant.

The official KOTR didn't begin until 1993. Then you're looking at the overall Heel winning throughout. And typically, it's the heel who's had the more impressive "road to the finals".

Who's Jericho beaten? Rob Van Dam. Bam Bam Bigelow in a match formatted for him to win! Scott Steiner (toughest match to my knowledge) and Bob Backlund.

Thats hardly going through the likes of Lesnar, Austin & Raven. Not to mention - Steamboat, who had the Hall of Fame backing this year. Edge's weakest opponent was the World's Strongest Man. That's not too shabby of a winning streak for tourney standards.

So by this logic - Edge would surely win, once again like I said to KB, because he'd have the biggest bragging rights of all - to say who all he defeated to win.

Firstly, Edge is not Chris Jericho. Just because they are both heels does not mean that you can compare his winning against The Rock and Stone Cold in the same night to what Edge is attempting to do. Second, going through Rhyno and Kurt Angle is nothing like Stone Cold and The Undertaker. I'll admit, it was impressive, but it's not the same here.

Angle is arguably better than both Austin, or Taker. But you're 100% right, Rhyno is in NO way, shape or form, either Austin or Taker. Yet you surely have to give some minor credit to Edge being a guy breaking free from the Tag team ranks in this tournament to make a statement against Angle of all people, who was one of the top guys in 2001.

You can't note Edge's King of the Ring victory and other things of the sort if you're going to discount The Undertaker's victories over Edge. You can't pick and choose elements of kayfabe to suit your needs.

I don't think I ever said you couldn't use Taker's victories over Edge. But it defeats purpose when Edge's defeated the Undertaker. (by pinfall, at least once to win a World title - and more so in Tag matches and other meaningless matches)

I'm only counting Edge's tournament victory, because it shows he can win these style of matches. Whereas Taker stumbles in them. For various reasons, he still can't seem to win tournaments.

He defeated Edge at Backlash and Judgement Day, which were neither WrestleMania or the end of the feud, but I digress.

I still swear the Judgment Day match was thrown out, after Taker used the Hell's Gate(s) on him - when Vickie said using that move would cost Taker the match - and the title. (which is how the title was held up for One Night Stand to begin with.)

And naturally Taker would've won at Backlash, it'd have made him look like a shit Champion to lose 2 weeks after Mania.

Well no, by your logic, if Bret Hart moves on then he doesn't. Of course, if Chris Jericho were to move on, that'd be reason for Undertaker to as well. You said it yourself, "I'm noticing that typically in KOTR tournaments you get a face and a heel to advance.". I don't like arguing that, though. We don't know what the outcome of Jericho and Hart will be, so this is an impossibility to judge by. My reasoning for Undertaker to win this match is that he has won all their other one on one, standard matches. The is no evidence to tell me that Edge could beat him in this match when he has failed three times previous. I've never heard the saying, "Fourth time's a charm".

He hasn't won all of their one-on-one encounters. But he's won more, which also stands to reason that it's "Edge's turn" once again. As typically in Pro Wrestling, that's how they do things with two big names.

I'm counting 4-2 in favor of The Undertaker, in which he won all three standard matches and lost one when Edge's wife booked the match in Edge's favor and three guys ran to the ring. Yes he's a heel and I'm glad he's resourceful, but he couldn't pull that here. He'd be disqualified. To vote Undertaker because he has won all their standard one on one encounters is a perfectly acceptable reason. I'd also go on to add that The Undertaker is stronger, more resilient, has multiple ways to end the match abruptly, etc.

I've already defused why none of that matters, to KB.

If you showed me irrefutable proof that Edge would win this match, not could, would (Anyone could win any match), then I would vote for him. Until then, The Undertaker has my vote.

How can I show you proof, that you couldn't counter with your own? You say you're voting for Taker, because he's beaten Edge. Well, I could show you several videos in which Edge has beaten Taker. It won't change anything, it'll take us to a stale-mate.

All the "proof" I can give you, is pure speculation based on kayfabe logic, and overall storyline booking. The Undertaker is simply the wrong type of character, and individual to win here. Edge is the perfect type.

Why? Because Edge's character thrives off this type of match, this type of setting. A tournament, in which you seize every moment, every opportunity. Again, even if my vote could be bought - unless someone show's me where the Undertaker can thrive even remotely in a tournament, much less as many as Edge's won (over just as big of names) then I fail to see how Taker is a proven winner in this match.

Edit: Damn Will! You pumped out three more posts for me to reply to already? I'll get them in the morning.

Its okay, my posts in this thread shouldn't be AS long. I'm not trying AS much.

Edge only wins when it benefits him the most? When does winning NOT benefit you? I was under teh impression that winning was a good thing.

I think if I didn't know any better, you'd be trying to use Idiocracy on me. You know the difference between a victory that means something, and a victory that's just another win.

Yes, winning means something.. but not always does it mean everything. If this were a regular match, with no out-come that means anything - Edge would get counted out and just walk away. But it's not just some match.

It's a match in which the winner is moving on to the Finals of a very important tournament. One, Edge, will put more heart, passion, desire and focus into - than the Undertaker, who goes into everything the same way. (unless of course, once again, this is Wrestlemania)

Anyway, sure Edge could win, but there's no logical reason to think that he would.

How is there not? Have you read a word I've said? I gave plenty of full-proof theories and opinions on why Edge not just could, but should and would win. Very logical reasoning. A lot more so than just being "out-matched" should bring you a victory.

If thats the case, why isn't this a match-up between Big Show/Lesnar/Vader on one side and Austin/Rock/Hogan on the other?

Once again, proves that your opinion of "the better, more well-rounded athlete should always win" theory doesn't work.

Taker is just flat out better than Edge is except for one thing: being overrated.

What the F ever. How is the Undertaker NOT overrated? He dresses in black, and has fake parlor tricks "spook" his opponents. Wow, thats fucking talent right there, KB.

Taker's went through 19 years (mainly and mostly) off of being considered a "Deadman". He's only ever going to be remembered for Wrestlemania, and if it wasn't for the event that comes once a year and has brought him a 17-0 streak.. he'd be just as useless, forgettable and overrated as the Big Show.

Wrestlemania makes the Undertaker relevant. The other 364 days of the year, he's either gone, jobbing, or tied up in useless, nonsense feuds that go no where for the most part.

Edge is ALWAYS relevant, and doesn't just rely on any one thing to make his name remembered.

Every single attribute you listed off for him, Taker has done and has done more effectively. Anything from gimmick matches to standard matches to lighting matches like he did with Kane as a child, Taker wins here, plain and simple.

Riigghhtt.. so, go find me a video of Taker winning a MITB match. How about finding me a video of Taker winning 9 different Heavyweight titles. Wait, better yet - where's the video of Taker fucking Kane's girlfriend?

Uh huh.. so, he's NOT quite as better as you say he is. I see. Any other false elaborations you wanna lay on these people so I can put you back in your place, or does this wrap it up?

 

[klunderbunker]

Really now, because I've yet to see a way that you've said where Edge can realistically get a 1-2-3 on Taker.

Riigghhtt.. so, go find me a video of Taker winning a MITB match. How about finding me a video of Taker winning 9 different Heavyweight titles. Wait, better yet - where's the video of Taker fucking Kane's girlfriend?

MITB-Taker doesn't win title shots at Mania. He wins World Titles at Mania, once from Edge himself. Also, since when does climbing a ladder have anything to do with this match?

Edge has won 9 world titles, and I'll take any one Taker reign over all of Edge's month long ones combined.

This is a fucking competition? Hell if that's the case, Val Venis wins everything.

 

[Uncle Sam]

You're using really odd logic here, William. Very odd logic indeed. Some would call it complex. I probably wouldn't. I don't really know what you're getting at though.

Because Edge is a heel, he'll automatically advance? Right now, Jericho seems a more likely candidate to go over Hart - as 48.7 pointed out - so, by your logic, Undertaker should win.

Otherwise, you seem to be talking about how The Undertaker hasn't won any Money in the Bank matches and things that just generally don't seem relevant to the discussion.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Really now, because I've yet to see a way that you've said where Edge can realistically get a 1-2-3 on Taker.

Why does Edge have to win via a straight pin-fall? Everyone keeps tossing in this whole "He can get Disqualified if he cheats" crap. So Taker can win by any means, but Edge MUST ONLY WIN by pinfall?

Fuck that. Edge is a thinker, and in doing so, he can much easier come to get Taker counted out. (I seem to recall someone claiming Taker should be smart enough to answer a 10 count - you'd think so, and he even beat Edge once in this situation - but how often does Taker mistrack and lose place with being counted out? I'd say more often than you'd think.)

And even if all else fails, Edge can attempt using a weapon.. have it taken away from the Undertaker, only for Taker to be enraged at this point and get foolishly DQ'd himself.

Why am I straying away from pinfalls, I'm sure you're wondering - because I'm proving to you, Edge doesn't HAVE to win via pinfall. He could catch Taker on a roll-up, just like Taker could him. He could spear Taker, hook the tights, feet on the ropes, the whole 9 yds.. but the point is, Edge can win via count-out and DQ against Taker, which are ways Taker wouldn't dream of trying to win by - because he'd want to be honorable.

MITB-Taker doesn't win title shots at Mania. He wins World Titles at Mania, once from Edge himself. Also, since when does climbing a ladder have anything to do with this match?

You tell me, you're the one claiming anything Edge's done, Taker's done better. I think I just proved you wrong, getting ready to do it - twice. Especially with those lame ass title reigns you want to credit Taker with.

Yeah, Edge's had some bad ones.. but he was heel for all of his. What's Taker's excuse?

Edge has won 9 world titles, and I'll take any one Taker reign over all of Edge's month long ones combined.

Okay, let's put that to the test.

The Undertaker's FIRST Championship reign.. lasted 6 whooping days. SIX. Holy shit, Klunker. Edge's first reign was sad at 3 weeks, but SIX fucking days?! Are you kidding me?!

Back when title reigns were meant to go longer than they do now.. and Taker comes up with a six DAY reign?!

The Undertaker's SECOND Championship reign was his best. 133 days, before dropping it to Bret Hart in 1997.

His THIRD reign went 36 days.. wait, that's just a month and 6 days, what the fuck AGAIN, another short pathetic reign?! But, this is the Undertaker. What's with the fucking small reign?!

His FOURTH reign went 63 days.. again, that's roughly 2 months. Not entirely a lengthy reign, if you ask me.

Okay, surely he can do better with the World Heavyweight title then.

His FIFTH reign.. went 37 days. THIRTY SEVEN?! I thought this guy was suppose to be entirely bigger, badder and better?! Thats right over a month. And Edge was the one who defeated him for this title. Edge's reign went 70 days. Thats almost twice as long as Taker's.

Taker's final reign, his SIXTH reign.. went 30 fucking Days?! And Edge once again won it by defeated the Undertaker.

I'm sorry Klunker, what part of you wanting to take ANY of his Championship reigns over Edge was meant to impress me, again? And out of the two, who's beat who MORE to gain Championship matches?

Do I even need to remind you about why Mania is also Taker's greatest peak, which gives him unbelievable stand-point, the likes of which aren't even relevantly close to this tournament match-up.

You're using really odd logic here, William. Very odd logic indeed. Some would call it complex. I probably wouldn't. I don't really know what you're getting at though.

Because Edge is a heel, he'll automatically advance? Right now, Jericho seems a more likely candidate to go over Hart - as 48.7 pointed out - so, by your logic, Undertaker should win.

Otherwise, you seem to be talking about how The Undertaker hasn't won any Money in the Bank matches and things that just generally don't seem relevant to the discussion.

Yeah, I'm tired.. and not giving it my full effort right now. Not sure how all this MITB talk came up. I'm sure someone stupid enough (Justin, likely - he seems to wanna only pick the easy stuff out) will try and reply with "Wow Will, that's just stupid right there because this isn't a ladder/gimmick match".

I'm sure the word "fuck" will be inserted every other word, if it's Justin replying though.

Regardless, I'm not the one who brought gimmick/ladder matches into the conversation. KB is with his whole "anything Edge does, Taker does better".. so I asked him to prove it - and like normal, he can't.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'll be sticking with my original posts for the time being. They can be found on pages one and two, for those desperate to see them. I'm sure everyone is desperate to see them. Not much else to say, really.

I'm disappointed by these semi-finals. The winners are too obvious. In my mind, The Undertaker shouldn't even be here. The Great Khali should. Oh well - you win some, you lose some.

 

[THE Madcap]

My thoughts on this matchup, without taking into consideration of other posts in this thread...

Edge v Undertaker - Abilitywise

1. Strength - Undoubtedly, the Undertaker has the power game on lock for this match up. Power moves in his arsenal include a simple side slam, chokeslam, last ride and the tombstone piledriver

a few vids of Edge's history with the Taker's main finisher, the piledriver:

[youtube]qQH8FzKkHUc[/youtube]

this one, a counter of Edge going for what looks like a powerslam:

[youtube]h5ibobluJQ8[/youtube]

[youtube]ecREwtfkGTA[/youtube]

pretty conclusive from these 3 vids, that if Taker hits the tombstone, he gets the 1-2-3.

I would say that Edge has very little power moves and that in terms of strength, Undertaker is undeniably better

2. Aerial Ability - yes Taker likes to hit the odd over the top rope splash or through the ropes dive at the big PPVs, but IMO Edge is superior to the Undertaker in this field. Sure he may not show it, but lest we forget the days of TLC 1, E&C v Hardys, and Edge's debut in the WWE.

3. Technical Ability - Despite the fact that Edge legitimately broke his opponent's neck in his WWE debut, it's fair to say that Edge has a better array of technical moves at his disposal, more so than the Undertaker. That being said, we can't also forget that Taker wiped the floor with one of the greatest technical wrestlers the WWE has seen, in the shape of Chris Benoit in the previous round.

4. Striking - I would say Edge is relatively accomplished as a striker/brawler. However, undertaker owns Edge in this department IMO. Just watch an Undertaker match and look at the amount of punches and kicks he can hit

5. Hardcore - Whilst it is largely irrelevant in this match, both men can be sick, twisted SOBs, and I'm shocked to say Edge probably edges this attribute (no pun intended).

His match against Foley at wm22 is testiment to this...

[youtube]bK7Gc4qGUQU[/youtube]

But lets not discount Taker's ability of taking it hardcore:

[youtube]UqxhuSrLu9A[/youtube]

On to the final attribute...

6. Submission

Whilst Edge has the Edgecution, Taker's Devil's Gate has taken down and won matches against far bigger men and the fact that it has caused many men to bleed internally, means to me that is by far the more damaging finisher. I can't remember a time where someone has tapped to the Edgecution.

Now, as this tournament has now reverted to a KOTR format, looking at both's previous matches, Austin took Edge to hell and back, whilst Taker breezed past Benoit. Edge is gonna be hurting going into this match. Now not saying he can't recover from his injuries, the only way Edge can go into this one on the same stamina level as Taker is if Hawkins, Ryder, Guerrero and Neely attack Taker before the bell, which is perfectly feasible.

Hmm, what else? Oh yeah, this match is in Taker's "hometown", but as Taker's prime is back in his Death Valley days, noone would know to care that he's from H-Town, other than the smarks so that is by large, irrelevant.

Another point to consider, and I am aware that I am rambling, is that in what I consider to be their primes, Edge has La Familia at his disposal, whilst Taker has the Ministry.

Should Hawkins and Ryder make a run in, The Acolytes will take care of them, leaving Guerrero for Mideon and Neely for Viscera so IMO that cancels both groups out, leaving just Vickie and Bearer in their respective corners. Bearer has Taker's urn, which gives a slight Edge I guess.

Personally, I love Edge, definitely one of my favourites. Whilst on the other hand, I can't stand Taker and whilst I could justify voting against Edge in previous rounds due to my personal faves (Lesnar & Austin), I can't do so here. For me, Taker should win this one, but despite his recent record being 4-1 against Edge, this one is extremely close.

I'm currently gonna say Taker, but invite anyone to convince me otherwise.

 

[X]

I bet this is where a lot of people are awaiting some long, "word-fort" post, in which I pretty much make some very convincing statements (which some people would still contribute as "shit") on why everyone should vote for Edge. Well, sorry to disappoint, but the last time I made a great post with several key's to victory - I got one person to man up, find his balls, and actually reply.

And I'm back again baby.

So the truth is.. you should vote Edge, because he's just plain better. I don't need to explain it, go read any other fucking thread I've ever posted in on Edge and you should already know it. Don't try arguing, because you won't win. You can run your mouth, you can say I'm wrong, but you'll never be able to prove it, so why you even try is pointless in my opinion.

Obviously we can't ultimately "prove" who is or isn't the better wrestler by the vague definitions people use in this tournament. But what fun would it be to argue about proven fact?

People felt Raven should've won. HE LOST. People felt Lesnar should've won. HE LOST. People felt Austin should've won. HE LOST. Has anyone truly started to connect the dots and draw a line between them? If so, you'll notice it's a picture of Edge, leading all the way to the Finals - becoming the 2009 WZ Tournament WINNER!

I'd put Edge over Raven for sure. I initially went with Lesnar against Edge, but have had second thoughts of it. Austin on the other hand was completely robbed. Gotta say though, I don't see Edge being able to go over Taker here just because of Taker's popularity. Even if he did surpass 'Taker, he'd likely be stopped by Hart (assuming Hart goes over Jericho like we all suspect he will).

So I suppose I'll actually contribute the bare minimum to this thread.

So, taking silly kayfabe into logic - I'm noticing that typically in KOTR tournaments you get a face and a heel to advance. Well, Bret Hart is your face. And the Undertaker damn sure isn't your heel. So that leaves you with Edge.

...Seriously Will? You're grasping at straws now man, I certainly hope you've got a better reason then who is the face or heel in the match. Completely and totally irrelevent.

But Edge's gonna be more worn down, he's not suppose to win when he's worn down. Riigghh.. wrong. Jericho (as a heel) won back-to-back matches against The Rock, and Steve Austin.

That match has been cited by just about everyone for every one of the last five or six match-ups it seems (myself included), but the truth of that match is that Jericho defeated Austin with a slew of help, mainly Booker T with a title belt. That match didn't exactly scream "fair fight".

Edge has won a KOTR after defeating Rhyno (a guy who many claim has a better speed, and more power)

Rhyno? Man, I don't understand the appeal to the IWC of the guy. He's good for a gimmick match and that's about it. The guy isn't exactly anywhere near someone like Undertaker on the Great Totem Pole of Wrestling.

then Kurt Angle. (a Heavyweight Champion, still way above him in logic of prime's) So to say Edge, worn down or not, is destined to lose - is plain and simply ******ed.

Defeating Angle certainly is impressive after a match with Rhyno, but 'Taker has just as much stamina as Edge if not more.

SO, next; Undertaker holds a couple extra victories over Edge. Oh noes, the world is coming to an end. People, look up Professional Wrestling. What you're gonna get, is a reference in which it says "a non-competitive professional sport, where all matches are scripted by the promotion's booking staff"".

...Dude! You kept citing Edge match after Edge match after Edge match and now you want to throw away that criteria when it doesn't support your choice? That's not very logical.

And if we're going by judging the wrestlers based on a business of "non-competitive sport", then the Undertaker wins this match simply because of his massive popularity and drawing ability far outweighing Edge's. But let's not confine ourselves to judging this contest soley on that

So, whats that tell you? It tells you, the Undertaker defeated Edge more - because he was booked and logically had reason to go over Edge - instead of losing.

How does this factor in? Simple, unless this Tournament is suddenly taking place at Wrestlemania, or is the ending to a feud between these two individuals (again) then the face (Undertaker) WON'T COME OUT - THE WINNER.

I just cannot believe you are using this as an argument Will. Who's a face and who's a heel is completely and totally irrelevent.

This is a match, built around stupid kayfabe logic, that tells you Edge has every way of winning, and the Undertaker has no reason to move on.

I thought this was a tournament to determine the best pro wrestler? Not who would win in a kayfabe storyline if so-and-so was a face and so-and-so was a heel.

Is this stupid to anyone else yet? When it is, just say so - then give me ONE actual reason why the Undertaker SHOULD win. Because to say he should win, just because he's defeated Edge before - isn't a reason. Edge's defeated Taker just as much. (oh, boo-hoo, so he's cheated in doing so - he's a fucking heel, idiots, get over it)

'Taker should win Will, because he is better then Edge at every single criteria by which you can judge a professional wrestler. This is a man who beat Hulk (motherfucking) Hogan in the midst of Hulkamania in his first year in the business. This is a man who has won more Wrestlemania matches then the amount of years Edge has been wrestling. 'Taker has destroyed every big name in wrestling there is, so defeating Edge should be absolutely no problem.

Also, when people want an actual reason or reasons, from me, on why Edge should win. I'd be way more than happy to give them. If, of course, your vote isn't already locked in for Taker - because you're upset Edge has kicked your guy out of the tournament already.

Well I'll admit my vote is already locked to 'Taker, but that doesn't mean we can't have som fun while we're here.

 

[ZEUS]

I have one big complaint regarding a statment that a lot of people have made thus far. How do you all figure that Taker would have wlaked through Benoit? Yes, Taker got almost 70% of the vote to win. But, that simply means that he had more people thinking he would win, not that he gave out 70% of the punishment in the match. Benoit never got squashed by anyone, he took the Taker to the limit on a number of occasions and would have done so again. The argument that Undertaker is more "fresh" because he destroyed Benoit in the voting is completely ridiculous, as that is not what the voting stands for.

 

[2012isbs]

So, taking silly kayfabe into logic - I'm noticing that typically in KOTR tournaments you get a face and a heel to advance. Well, Bret Hart is your face. And the Undertaker damn sure isn't your heel. So that leaves you with Edge. [\Qoute]

The arguement that in a KOTR tournament you always end up with a face and a heel is useless here Takers been heel, Bret's been heel, Edge is heel and so is Jericho, Also all of them have been faces so the Heel vs Face final match cliche is useless to convince someone to vote Edge.

Also Edge may have won matches he should've lost so Edge who is destroyed after his match with Ausitin don't get me wrong Edge would put up a decent fight but he probably beat Austin by hitting a roll up out of nowhere or cheating so he is much more exhausted then if the average guy beat Austin. Taker would be tired after his match but not as much as Edge. I expect Edge to get beat on at the start something will happen like a low blow, la familia or whatever, then edge will get the advantage hit the spear, taker will kick out and start to dominate then edge will start to gian momentum he'll miss a spear then get Tombstoned and pinned.
Aside from a hypthetical match between Edge and Taker I have facts. Undertaker ended Edge's WM and Summerslam streaks. Edge has beaten Taker in a one on one match twice when he cashed in his MITB contract and when he was in his signature match which he only won because of interference from La Familia which if you consieder this time period his prime then consider The Ministry taker's prime during this time he beat Austin for the WWE championship, was in a major angle with the McMahons so yeah Ministry taker could be considered prime taker.
Qucik question, can Vickie change the stipulation after taker has the match won?

Bottomline: Vote Undertaker unless Vickie can change the match after Edge has lost, actually nevermind that becasue that would mean Edge needs help to beat Taker so just vote Taker.

 

[Lee]

dA UnDAtaKA sENtED eDGE to HelL So He WuD bEAt EdGE in DiS MaTcH lmfao

In all seriousness, this is all takers, what I could say has been said, I am suprised Edge has lasted this long, but the Deadman takes him out on this one, even if Edge has won KOTR before, he's fighting fricking undertaker!

(though on a side note...if Edge wins I can say don't blame me, I voted Khali in the first round)

 

[TwistofRKO]

The best argument, if that can even be attributed, is that Edge has beaten OTHER guys a few years ago. That's the nitty gritty on it.

Guess what? The Undertaker just dominated Edge in 5 match-ups last year, being in Edge's prime and the Undertaker having to deal with his dangerous finishing submission being banned and eventually 'Taker himself being banned.

There's no viable argument you can make for Edge to beat the Undertaker. He just doesn't beat the Undertaker, his spear doesn't phase the Undertaker, he can't take the Undertaker's finishers, he can't inflict the pain the Undertaker can, and doesn't have the threshold for pain the Undertaker has.

This is the easiest vote you can possibly have this late in the tournament, we just had it illustrated for us in the main event for numerous PPVs for your voting convenience.

Vote Undertaker

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

So the truth is.. you should vote Edge, because he's just plain better. I don't need to explain it, go read any other fucking thread I've ever posted in on Edge and you should already know it. Don't try arguing, because you won't win. You can run your mouth, you can say I'm wrong, but you'll never be able to prove it, so why you even try is pointless in my opinion.

Have fun proving that Edge is better, chum. Don't try arguing.

Is this stupid to anyone else yet? When it is, just say so - then give me ONE actual reason why the Undertaker SHOULD win. Because to say he should win, just because he's defeated Edge before - isn't a reason.

When people make predictions as to the winner of particular sporting contests...do analysts NOT take into consideration previous matchups????

Furthermore, how is it NOT a reason? I think that what you said, by definition, is a reason.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

The best argument, if that can even be attributed, is that Edge has beaten OTHER guys a few years ago. That's the nitty gritty on it.

Or, you know, the exact same argument everyone claiming the Undertaker should win has been giving.. which is, Edge has defeated the Undertaker - just like the Undertaker's defeated Edge. Oh noes, what now. Shame.

Guess what? The Undertaker just dominated Edge in 5 match-ups last year, being in Edge's prime and the Undertaker having to deal with his dangerous finishing submission being banned and eventually 'Taker himself being banned.

Five? So let's count these bad-boys out.

WrestleMania: The Undertaker won, even without question because its Mania and he wins. But a win is a win. (despite Edge likely not having a chance, much like 16 other victims)

Backlash: Taker wins again. But the bigger question is, why? Oh, I don't know - maybe to keep from having Taker's pathetic reigns as Champion look absolutely for shit - especially since he's a face. But a win is a win, right? Right.

Judgment Day: Once again, count-out or draw - you decide. Most of you will give Taker the win, so be it. But last time I checked his reign ended here. That doesn't sound like a win in my book.

One Night Stand: With his CAREER on the line, the Undertaker chokes, and loses everything. His chance to keep his title, and his career. In fact, the Undertaker wouldn't even be back IN Wrestling right now (according to storylines) if it wasn't for Vickie.

So, you can claim the "Family" helped Edge win all you want. But the "Family" also kept Taker a job - one, I might add, that he couldn't keep for himself.

And yeah, Edge lost at Mania and Backlash - but shouldn't Taker's biggest match be one where his career's on the line? So how'd he come to lose that? Most of the time, when you drop a career match - logically there isn't suppose to be anymore second chances. How many other people have ended Taker's career? Oh, thats right - none, just Edge.

There's no viable argument you can make for Edge to beat the Undertaker.

I've made plenty, you just have to try reading them for once.

He just doesn't beat the Undertaker, his spear doesn't phase the Undertaker,

Seemed to work here..

[youtube]9gyhGZdp6M0[/youtube]

Oh, but.. but.. but.. but nothing. It worked, didn't it?

he can't take the Undertaker's finishers,

Watch the Wrestlemania match a bit closer. He kicked out of everything Undertaker gave him. Last Ride, Chokeslam and even the Tombstone. So, yeah, he can take the Undertaker's finishers just as well.

he can't inflict the pain the Undertaker can,

[youtube]_4-2BwmJBsk[/youtube]

Something tells me the Undertaker wasn't happy after taking that Spear. And my guess is, he was hurting quite a bit as well.

and doesn't have the threshold for pain the Undertaker has.

[youtube]rDZIP3lLE5o&feature=related[/youtube]

So, this is the Undertaker having a bigger threshold for pain? He was ONE SECOND away from a victory - and taps out. On the flip side of this, while Edge has tapped to Angle as well - he didn't do it when he was inches away from victory, like some little bitch.

Uhm, yeah.. no. Taker's "threshold for pain" might not be less than Edge, but he doesn't hold a superior stretch over him, either, by any means.

This is the easiest vote you can possibly have this late in the tournament, we just had it illustrated for us in the main event for numerous PPVs for your voting convenience.

You know, once again I laugh at statements like these more than anything else. If matches like these were gosh darn so easy - why's Edge still in this thing? I thought his match-up against Lesnar was meant to be so darned easy. And again against Austin.

Shucks, those sure-fire easy matches just aren't what they used to be, huh.

EDIT: Xfear, I'll reply to you and anyone else I missed when I have more time. This post didn't take nearly as long as my reply to You and a couple others will. See ya soon.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Have fun proving that Edge is better, chum. Don't try arguing.

Oh, hey Ricky. So, how's Austin doing in the tou.. ohh, thats right. Well, at least you still have that thread of your's in the bar room.

When people make predictions as to the winner of particular sporting contests...do analysts NOT take into consideration previous matchups????

Furthermore, how is it NOT a reason? I think that what you said, by definition, is a reason.

I'm not telling people to not use the understanding of Edge losing to the Undertaker. However, how can it possibly be relevant when Edge has pinned and defeated the Undertaker, just the same?

Oh, but the cheating.. right? Oh, but the gimmick match(es).. right? So? What would your exact point be? The Undertaker defeated Edge at Mania - this isn't Mania. He defeated Edge at Backlash - this isn't Backlash. Do you see a pattern yet, or should I keep going.

My point, incase you're still having difficulty, is that both men have defeated each other. And in fact, who's to say when this match-up takes place? Everyone arguing that Edge only beat Taker the first initial time for the title was because he was worn down from just having a match - You're playing right into this contest, are you not?

Is this not a Tournament? Did the Undertaker not just have a match against Chris Benoit? So who's to say Edge didn't rush out immediately following that match - (like others in tournaments have done) and capitalize on the situation, ultimately ending up winning and advancing yet again?

Oh - but thats not gonna happen, right Ricky? Because the odds have to be stacked so heavily in yet everyone else's favor, right Ricky? So then we jump back to the old stalemate of Edge and Taker have pinned each other - how does it prove who would win this time around? It doesn't - thereby making the logic of "Taker's beaten Edge" irrelevant.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Will, the argument is very relevant. Undertaker has beaten Edge more times than vice versa...thus, the likelihood of Taker winning again would seem to be far greater than the likelihood of Edge winning again. Perhaps the lopsided record suggests that The Undertaker is, in fact, better than Edge? I mean, that's what I would deduce from the statistic.

The Phillies are 10-2 against the Washington Nationals so far this year. Sure, both teams have beaten each other, but the Phillies clearly seem to have the Nationals' number. I would say that this is due to the fact that the Phillies are a better team than the Nationals, but I guess there could be other factors involved.