Championship Region, Fifth Round: (2) Undertaker vs. (9) Brock Lesnar

[klunderbunker]

This is a fifth round match in the Championship Region. It will be held at Camping World Stadium in Orlando, Florida.

Starting in this round, all matches are taking place in one night, meaning all damage from one match will carry over to the next match. This will be determined by the margin of the match and total votes. The wider a margin, the more dominant a victory. The more total votes, the longer a match lasted. I'll keep these updated as the last three rounds go along.

#2. Undertaker

Vs.

#9. Brock Lesnar

​

Polls will be open for six days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster. Assume that the wrestlers are coming in fresh after their first round match.

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

We all know Lesnar has defeated Taker in the ring, but I don't think for one minute Lesnar is better than The Undertaker.

Brock Lesnar's entire appeal is that he beats people up. What evolution has this character had over the years, besides incorporating a few MMA moves into his arsenal? None (Well, he used to do MMA moves...). I know myself and others changed the channel when Lesnar was on top 2002-2003 because it was the same song and dance with the guy. If Triple H buried people back then, Brock dug them back up, hit a suplex, and placed them back in their graves. Business was not exceptional with Lesnar on top. For a guy with a killer moveset, he was fucking dull when it came to everything else. For good reason Paul Heyman was by his side then, and wouldn't you know. 12 years later he still is, because he's not good enough to hold the place down on his own. His only attraction is that he isn't around often, even as the champion. At least when Taker wasn't around, he was a man pushing into his 50s that didn't take the biggest prize in wrestling with him. Instead of making Brock seem like a huge deal when he fights, pay per views lacking the title just seem like filler. That's not good. Kind of defeats the purpose of having big events.

I will vote for the better character, which is Taker. He made a gimmick that should have failed on the first day into one of the most beloved icons in wrestling history. And the best part about it, is it evolved over time. We got Mortician Taker. We got Sorcerer Taker. We got Biker Taker. We got Outlaw Taker. Brock Lesnar hasn't changed, unless you want to count changing his speedos into trunks progression.

Fans give Cena hell for not developing when Brock hasn't developed in over 15 years.

I will vote for the man who gave us better stories, and that's Taker. Kane would not exist without him. The urn, the druids, beloved manager Paul Bearer, being buried alive, crucifying Stone Cold, caskets, The Streak, the list goes on and on with how many unforgettable moments he gave the fans. You can list Brock's moments like lines from a tabloid. Brock Breaks The Streak. Brock Beat Up John Cena. Brock Fucked Up A Shooting Star Press. That's it. That's what he's given us with his eternal off-again, on-screen again angle.

Brock Lesnar also fought an old man named Undertaker. He didn't face him in his prime (unless for some reason you're willing to call 2002 Undertaker, a 37 year old superstar, in their prime.) I don't.

Vote Taker.

 

[Celtic Tiger]

Its one of those head and heart matches, and for me i say 'taker in both head and heart cases.

So looking back at their previous encounters at mania 30 or hell in a cell 2015, that was Brock destroying an old man, you could never book 'taker to beat him then. Back in 2002 'taker helped to give Brock the credibility and get him over in two great matches. That being said, don't think for a moment that it discredits 'taker and gives Brock the easy victory here.

Brock is a boring character, I thought he was great back in '02-'04 but now he just stands there smirking and does his suplex city bullshit, while look at 'taker, from the funeral parlor, evolved into the phenom, created the ministry, became a biker and big evil and to the later day undertaker. He evolved and never gave the same old matches and i honestly think overall in every aspect whether its putting on a great match, telling a great story or to entertain you he was one of the greatest. Brock is not.

Im voting Undertaker....

 

[sikkbones]

Taker close to retirement took Brock to the edge.

Rookie Brock had a hard time with the taker in the early 2000s.

Original deadman or attitude era ministry deasman would have made bork laser look like a musclebound jobber.

Vote taker.

 

[Dave]

I started writing a paragraph in support of The Undertaker and then changed my mind.

I had initially based that argument around the idea tat The Undertaker who was beat by Brock Lesnar is not the same Undertaker that was in his prime. I argued that had Brock Lesnar faced off against the Undertaker even 5 years ago, the result would have been altogether different. And as much as I feel that is true, I just feel as though Brock has the measure of The Undertaker and that has been a fact throughout his entire career.

Look back at No Mercy 2002, where Brock beat The Undertaker to retain the WWE Championship. Hell, he even beat him a year later at No Mercy 2003!

This wasn't a busted and beat up Undertaker who was looking down the barrel of his entire career coming to an end. This was Taker when he was at his best, beating the best in the business and cementing the ring as being “his yard”. Yet, he was still beat by Brock Lesnar.

You don't even have to factor in the result at Mania which, at the heart of it, was a booking decision all the way. But it does support the argument that Brock Lesnar should defeat The Undertaker here. In the 8 matches that these two have contested one-on-one, Brock Lesnar has come out on top on 5 of those occasions.

I am a huge Undertaker fan but Brock Lesnar just has his number. There's always going to be be people who you just cannot beat and for The Undertaker, Brock Lesnar is that guy.

With a heavy heart, I'm voting for Lesnar.

 

[zhaff2004]

Lesnar beat taker just about every time they fought. This shouldn't be a contest.

The argument that taker wasn't in his prime in 02 is nonsense. Attitude era taker would've been crushed by Lesnar as well.

Also, Lesnar just steamrolled Sting in the last round. Sting and taker are very similar wrestlers and I'm not convinced that a prime taker will have any more luck that a prime sting in beating lesnar, I mean, it's not like Lesnar's fight with Sting was even close...

 

[enviousdominous]

This is a very difficult one to call, but I'm leaning Taker.

We really need to think back to a time when The Undertaker had guys like prime Warrior and prime Hogan showing legit fear at the idea of facing someone. Think about that for a minute; those of us fans who were 1980's kids can vividly remember Hogan waking up after losing to The Undertaker with a look of fear that we had never seen before, and we can remember The Ultimate Warrior backing up cautiously after locking eyes with The Undertaker.

Brock has established a niche for himself as a guy who stomps through anybody, no matter who they are. Before Hogan and Warrior ran into The Undertaker as he was back then, we'd have assumed the same thing about them. It's one thing to beat the best from your era, it's another to make them afraid of you. The Undertaker put fear into the hearts of men who we thought could never be broken, and he'd put that same fear into Brock.

Brock is facing The Undertaker when there was no streak to defend, and there was no tradition to uphold. That is when The Undertaker was at his most dangerous, when he had something to prove. Brock has never been better than he is today, and he was taken to the limit in his match against a way past his prime Undertaker.

Vote Undertaker.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm seeing several people mention Lesnar has defeated Taker multiple times. Has Undertaker ever beaten Lesnar?

Lesnar wins this. He's more legit in MMA fighting and it seems like most times they have faced off in the WWE, Lesnar has won. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[enviousdominous]

Has Undertaker ever beaten Lesnar?

*AHEM*

Skip to 15:55 in the following video:

[youtube]KBdlPGCiYTc[/youtube]

Brock Lesnar, not suffering any ill effects of the match, laid down for exactly ONE last ride.

Let's not pretend that beating The Undertaker is something that Brock is just naturally gifted at doing. Brock might have a good record against The Undertaker, but he's never made The Undertaker look like a loser.

 

[Slyfox696]

*AHEM*

No need to ahem, I was genuinely asking.

Skip to 15:55 in the following video:

[youtube]KBdlPGCiYTc[/youtube]

That's a triple threat match. This matchup isn't.

Has Taker beaten Lesnar in a one on one match?

Let's not pretend that beating The Undertaker is something that Brock is just naturally gifted at doing. Brock might have a good record against The Undertaker, but he's never made The Undertaker look like a loser.

Not pretending that at all. But Lesnar is a more legitimate fighter outside the ring and I've yet to see where Undertaker beat Lesnar one on one inside the ring.

 

[enviousdominous]

No need to ahem, I was genuinely asking.

I shouldn't have snapped, my bad.

That's a triple threat match. This matchup isn't.

Has Taker beaten Lesnar in a one on one match?

Though I prefer to weigh potential beyond the confines of the current match stipulation, you're right in suggesting that we should analyze how each of these men have faired in one-on-one matches against each other.

I know of exactly two instances where The Undertaker has beaten Brock in one-on-one matches. Here's the only one that I can legally post:

[youtube]BuiVpbq5_Ws[/youtube]

And the other one, that I'm sure you're well aware of, was when The Undertaker made Brock pass out at Summerslam in 2015.

In the first match, The Undertaker did something to Brock that Brock could never do to the Undertaker. The Undertaker made Brock his bitch, wearing street clothes no less.

 

[Da Prophet]

Lesnar was literally on his deathbed once. The guy shouldn't be alive due to that disease he had while fighting. Think about that. He had a disease which could have killed him while he was UFC HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. Lesnar at 50%, possibly even less, was enough to beat the best professional fighters in the world.

A normal man wouldn't have survived. He not only survived but Lesnar fought in the UFC at the highest level with a disease that is potentially deadly and went an entire year without knowing something was wrong.

Undertaker pretends to be the ruler of death. Brock Lesnar has looked death in the face and then beat the piss out of Shane Carwin to retain his World Championship.

If death couldn't stop Brock than I can't see Taker doing it.

 

[enviousdominous]

Lesnar was literally on his deathbed once. The guy shouldn't be alive due to that disease he had while fighting. Think about that. He had a disease which could have killed him while he was UFC HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. Lesnar at 50%, possibly even less, was enough to beat the best professional fighters in the world.

Brock earned his UFC Championship, and it's likely the most significant accomplishment of any prowrestler in terms of branching out to a sport.

But let's be real here, Brock carried that belt until the UFC didn't need him to. Brock's win over Randy was tainted by the fact that Randy hadn't fought in almost a year and Brock's match against Shane should have been called a few times before he managed to get a lucky choke-hold on him.

The diverticulitis thing happened, but Brock was way out of his league when Cain and Alistair got into the title hunt. Cain basically had Brock for breakfast, and Alistair beat Brock with one kick. Brock was damn resilient for fighting through his ailment, but don't pretend that it's the most impressive comeback story in the UFC.

A normal man wouldn't have survived. He not only survived but Lesnar fought in the UFC at the highest level with a disease that is potentially deadly and went an entire year without knowing something was wrong.

Um, highest level? I know that I was freaking out with everyone else when Brock became the UFC Heavyweight Champion, but we all know what his technique was. He'd force his weight onto his opponent and defend against submission attempts until they were gassed, he wasn't like Royce Gracie using masterful technique to take down opponents three times his size.

Maybe having the UFC Championship qualifies Brock as being at "The highest level", but nobody expected him to beat Cain.

Brock isn't going up against a normal man here, and if we're going to acknowledge that Brock possesses an Achilles heel like his weak abdomen then I only see that as an argument for The Undertaker.

Undertaker pretends to be the ruler of death. Brock Lesnar has looked death in the face and then beat the piss out of Shane Carwin to retain his World Championship.

Beat the piss out of Shane Carwin? Umm, did you watch that match? Shane had Lesnar down, rained fists onto him, and the ref wouldn't call the match. That first round was nothing but Shane Carwin owning Brock, and from my perspective Brock only got a second round because the ref would have lost his job if he called the match for Shane when he should have.

We might disagree on whether or not the fight was off-center in terms of the ref's integrity, but you can't watch that match and tell me that Brock "beat the piss" out of Shane.

If death couldn't stop Brock than I can't see Taker doing it.

Death might not stop Brock from trying, but a kick to the liver stopped him from winning. The Undertaker is coming into this ready to take more damage than Brock can give, and Brock is coming into this (by your own logic) with a glaring weakness that has cost him fights in the past.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

It's ridiculous you are bringing MMA accomplishments in a wrestling tournament. That's the same as not voting for Benoit because he's a murderer.

 

[ShinChan]

It's ridiculous you are bringing MMA accomplishments in a wrestling tournament. That's the same as not voting for Benoit because he's a murderer.

It would be less ridiculous if both sides of MMA experiences is brought up. If Brock Lesnar was a dominant world champion, he also did get knocked out as well. Twice. It isn't like he was unbeatable there. It's like taking whatever favors your statement and totally ignore if something opposes the statement.

I ain't decided yet but Brock's side isn't doing any good by bringing MMA.

 

[Dragon Chief]

Brock Lesnar has ended the streak and beaten Taker twice inside Hell in a Cell as well as a Biker chain match. Lesnar alongside Angle are the only two WWE wrestlers to make Undertaker tap out. Brock Lesnar was always better than Undertaker at his own game.

Vote: Brock Lesnar.

 

[Dave]

It does make a little bit of sense to bring in MMA, I guess. For one simple reason.. Undertaker being called the best pure striker in the world of professional wrestling. If that isn't a call to arms for the UFC fans to bring in legitimate striking, then I don't know what is. And whether you agree with the ethics of it or not, Lesnar was a very good competitor in the UFC. He beat the shit out of people, that's what he did. The Undertaker could not win in a straight fight with Lesnar inside the ring. If the Undertaker started striking Lesnar and hoping for a win, he would be soundly beaten.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Ahh the Tourney...


Man, this is kinda one sided if we are really being honest. I know people really wanna go Taker and he might win this because of 33, but it should be Brock. Taker was bested by the Beast a lot of times and that deafening silence at 30 is something that will outlive us all. That was insane. Brock is insane.

 

[Slyfox696]

I shouldn't have snapped, my bad.

No problem.

I know of exactly two instances where The Undertaker has beaten Brock in one-on-one matches. Here's the only one that I can legally post:

[youtube]BuiVpbq5_Ws[/youtube]

I wouldn't say the Undertaker beat Lesnar in that match, but yes, he got the win. I don't see that happening in a tournament setting however.

And the other one, that I'm sure you're well aware of, was when The Undertaker made Brock pass out at Summerslam in 2015.

I had actually forgotten about that. But even that was mired in controversy, as Undertaker only one because of Survivor Series '97 quality of officiating.

Neither are exactly a compelling case, if you ask me. On the other hand, Brock has definitively defeated the Undertaker.

 

[OYDK]

Straight up, this just isn't a good matchup for Taker and it never has been. At no point in his career has The Undertaker defeated Brock Lesnar, one-on-one in a high stakes match-up, unless you want to call their match at Summerslam "high stakes" which, quite honestly, I wouldn't. It was the second match in a 3 match series, Taker won it after a bullshit call in which Lesnar was completely distracted, and Lesnar ended up winning the blow-off match at Hell in a Cell.

The Undertaker beats Brock Lesnar when it doesn't matter, like in a random match on Smackdown. Brock beats Taker when something's on the line, like the WWE title or The Streak, or say, a semi-final spot in a tournament between the greatest wrestlers of all time. I'll be honest, I hate seeing Lesnar go far in this thing because the argument is always the same; Brock's a beast and he smashes everybody. But that's not necessarily the case here. Brock is legitimately the one guy who can be considered The Undertaker's kryptonite.

He's had Taker's number since the beginning and 8 years away from the ring didn't change that. Sadly, Brock wins this.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Every year in this tournament I give myself one match. Just one match where Idc where logic takes me, I'm going to be biased and vote based on my heart and I like more. Coincidentally, every year in this tournament, that one match that I give myself to vote that way always comes in this round in a 'Taker match. I don't think I have to go with my heart in this one though. 'Taker is better than Lesnar.

Lesnar beat the streak, Lesnar has had 'Taker's number, Lesnar smash..... I have seen and probably will see a lot of those statements and arguments in this match. Don't get me wrong; there is merit to those statements. Lesnar has had 'Taker's number and Lesnar did beat the streak. That's the kayfabe side of the coin though. Last I checked, there was a lot more to consider when trying to pick who the best professional wrestler is. 'Taker beats Lesnar in almost every category that we use to judge a successful wrestling career by. 'Taker is better in the ring, better on the mic, has a better legacy, more longevity, and is more respected and revered. Also, yes, 'Taker IS A BETTER DRAW. Maybe not in '02 or '03 or maybe not even since Lesnar has returned, but if you consider 'Taker's entire career as the Undertaker, he is far and away a better draw.

Also, to go along with that kayfabe argument, 'Taker has taken Lesnar to the brink and even made him pass out when he was little more than an old beat up shell of himself. Let's see Lesnar face 'Taker circa 93-97 when all 'Taker did was beat the resident monster of the month. 'Taker is a bigger name, a better character, and a better professional wrestler.

Vote 'Taker.

 

[Slyfox696]

but if you consider 'Taker's entire career as the Undertaker, he is far and away a better draw.

There's essentially no metric which can be presented which will make this true. Undertaker has never been a strong primary draw, he's almost always been a side draw. Lesnar, on the other hand, has been a strong primary draw in both the WWE and UFC.

Exactly on what are you basing this statement?

 

[nightmare]

Taker is a legend. Everyone knows why he deserves every accolade and good thing said about him. He literally left it all in the ring & walked out one of the best ever. In his legacy, one man was the asterisk next to his biggest claim to wrestling history. That man is his opponent here.

Brock was created to dethrone kings. A beast here to destroy monsters and slay giants. Brock Lesnar has not only defeated Taker inside the Cell, but he killed the streak. Match history is fact & Lesnar is favored with that stat.

People say that Brock's character isnt as good compared to Taker. Well, Goldust is a better character than Brock, but nobody would vote him over here. Kind of weak criteria. Besides, what is wrong with Lesnar's gimmick? Heyman barks, Lesnar bites. It is a solid combo that clearly is over with the fans.


Voting with your heartstrings is really the only way to justify a Taker win here. Logic, history and truth says Lesnar wins this.

 

[Lowdown]

I'm voting for Taker, mainly for nostalgia, and he's had a more storied career. I'm gonna push aside their one on one history, looking at both men in their primes. Both of them came in like a house of fire and had dominant win streaks. But, again longevity wins out. And for some reason I feel that Taker is better equipped to handle multiple matches in one night compared to Brock.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

As someone who loves Taker, and hates Lesnar, and am sick to death of the "Brock smash" arguments during these tournaments now, this is a match Lesnar stands no chance of losing. The fact that Taker won a couple of matches against Brock does not disprove a trend and a well-running conception that the Undertaker has been Lesnar's chewtoy, both in his initial run as well as his return.

Regrettably, Lesnar is the only logical choice here.