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

[Da Prophet]

Undertaker likes to pretend to be this MMA style fighter. Therefore, it's acceptable to use Lesnar's MMA experience for this match. You can go into Lesnar beating Taker repeatedly on the much bigger stages in the more important matches. Taker was never the guy who had the company built around him. Lesnar did and was like 25 years old and in his few year with the company.

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.

Brock Lesnar survived Shane until the guy gassed out. He was talking to the ref the entire time. Lesnar proved how great he was that night. He took some of the biggest shots ever and then submitted Shane in the next round with his wrestling. Lucky? No, Lesnar had been working heavily on his submission game at that point and as one of the best wrestlers, a champion at college and professionally in MMA, it was not luck. That was skill. Lesnar can take massive shots while Taker got knocked out within minutes at Mania 30. He can't handle punches from a heavyweight like Brock can.

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.

Cain, who is a top 3 heavyweight of all time in MMA? Wow, real shame in losing. It took one of the three best heavyweight fighters of all time to take the title off Brock. Think about that.

And Alistair... you mean the guy who got busted for PEDs soon after that fight? You mean the guy who was huge at the time and suddenly decreased in size? Hmmm. So Brock lost to one of the greatest in the division and a guy who we know was juicing soon after. Well, I think that says a lot about how great Lesnar was at the time. You're being very disrespectful to Lesnar's reign as champion. The gap wasn't as big as you are acting like it was. Lesnar had no right to still be fighting. The guy is a freak after surviving that disease. He was beating guys at 50% while they were ready to go. It took a future HOFer and a cheater to dethrone him.

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.

The UFC is the highest level of MMA. Brock Lesnar was UFC Heavyweight Champion.

Therefore, Brock competed at the highest level. Sure, nobody expected him to beat Cain. He was undefeated and clearly the best in the division. We know see him as a top 3 fighter for that division. What's wrong with losing to that? Lesnar was absolutely at the highest level.

Lesnar was at the highest level in both MMA and wrestling. Undertaker was never the top guy in WWE. Ever. Lesnar did it twice in two different sports.

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.

And Taker has proven to have a weak head. Lesnar already knocked him silly once within minutes at Mania. Taker isn't going to be throwing hard kicks to the stomach. Lesnar can knock him silly again. Point Lesnar.

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.

He still won. That's what I was getting at. He beat the piss out of him once Carwin gassed and the fight went into the second. Lesnar showed his will to survive in that fight. It's a major plus for him in this match. No matter what Taker throws at him, Brock can survive. Taker doesn't hit like Carwin. He can't kick like Alistair. Physically, Brock would ruin Taker.

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.

When has Taker even thrown a decent kick?

And that liver kick came from a guy on steroids. You can't use that as the standard for Lesnar's liver. The guy was juiced.

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.

Again, by a top 3 fighter in the division and a guy on juice. The cheating by Alistair removes the liver kick in my opinion. That leaves Lesnar's loss to Cain. A guy who is one of the best ever. Losing to him isn't a negative. That's what it took to bring down Lesnar. It took one of the best we have ever seen. Taker isn't a top 3 guy. He's never been the man in WWE. Lesnar was and also UFC.

Lesnar is so much better than Taker. Let me remind people that it wasn't Brock who came running. WWE and Taker came running to him way back in the day. They needed him. Lesnar is a star. He is a bigger draw than Taker. It was Taker who showed up to the UFC and confronted Lesnar. Not the other way round.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

This is one of the fewer examples of both wrestlers actually fighting each other a number of times throughout their careers. In other cases, like HHH vs Bruno and Andre vs Angle we can only speculate given the era difference and comparible careers/success/size/ability of opponents.

But with Taker vs Brock there shouldn't even be a debate, they've crossed paths a number of times and Brock has won more often than Taker.

So the winner would have to be Brock.

 

[ShinChan]

If you're going to count Alistair's juicing then what about Brock's juicing? He got juiced to defeat Mark Hunt.

I would rather get knocked down like The Undertaker at Wrestlemania 30 then juice myself like Brock for winning a match.

I respect The Undertaker for his longevity in professional wrestling. I can't respect a person who earns a great amount of money but stoops to juicing for winning a match.

Vote The Undertaker.

 

[Bernkastel]

If the logic of Brock Lesnar going over Cena is that he had his number in kayfabe repeatedly, then the same should be held true here. Lesnar has always defeated Undy on the big stage. Wrestlemania and Hell In A Cell being recent examples. Even a decade ago, Lesnar repeatedly defeated the Undertaker. In the kayfabe world Lesnar goes over. There's little argument there.

However kayfabe is but one aspect of the argument here. While it's true that Undertaker never carried an era as a top headliner, he was a remarkable draw as a special attraction. Like Andre. And that's been Lesnar's role for the last few years as well. He's a special attraction that is brought in to give the WWE a boost from time to time. But he doesn't have anywhere near the longevity of the Undertaker. From 23 until it was broken, the Streak was a major selling point of Wrestlemania, even usurping the main event twice.

If I am to choose the more important pro wrestler, it's the Undertaker. He's had far more impact on the industry overall than Brock Lesnar. He took a laughable gimmick and turned it into something mythological. He helped introduce over the top gimmick matches, which redefined what fans would come to accept in wrestling as real. It's fair to credit Undertaker with successfully bringing the theatrics of wrestling to new acceptable heights.

I believe the Undertaker to have had a more profound impact on the industry over the years. And as such he has my vote.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

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?

We've had this discussion too. And I had asked when Taker headlined PPVs (upon his return in 04) with the Deadman gimmick, wasn't he a legit draw on SD?

Again how do we measure this? The Main Event and its players are usually who get that accolade.

 

[Gallops77]

21-1...

Let that sink in.

Brock was the FIRST to defeat The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. An event where he beat a Who's Who of competitors. Triple H 3x, Shawn Michaels 2x, Ric Flair, Batista, Edge, Randy Orton, CM Punk, etc. Brock took the streak and wiped his ass with it. He conquered the streak and The Undertaker at what was truly HIS event.

You could say Brock was great during his initial run. But his true prime came when he returned in 2012 where he started dominating. He DESTROYED John Cena at Summerslam 2014. Nobody else in John Cena's career destroyed him. Very few have even beaten him clean. Lesnar manhandled Cena and took his title. Lesnar lost the title in a Triple Threat Match.

Taker is an all time great. But I take Lesnar in one match. Taker had more years where he was involved in nonsense feuds and matches where Lesnar was a World Champion less than a year after debuting and stayed in the main event from there on out. He's a MUCH bigger draw than Taker ever could be.

Vote for BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCK LESNARRRR!

 

[Aeon Mathix]

Yeah this is Brock all day and night. The guy ended Undertaker's streak and beat him TWICE in Hell in a Cell. If that isn't dominance over someone I'm not sure what is. The only noteworthy time Taker ever "beat" Brock was at Summerslam and even then Brock made him tap out before hand without the ref seeing it. What followed was Taker actually having to cheat to get Brock in Hell's gate for the tainted victory.

Brock has always had his number which isn't anything bad, it makes it more interesting for Undertaker knowing that there's one guy he faced in his career that got away basically every time. I can't remember nor do I even know when he beat Lesnar one on one besides the Summerslam match. We all distinctly remember Lesnar ending the streak and the 2 Hell in a Cell matches. That should say all it needs to.

Vote Lesnar

 

[Khalifa]

As much as I dislike Lesnar (even from his debut), it's hard to say anything else happens other than a Brock win here. We have seen this dance many times before as people have stated. Lesnar coming on top in like 90% of them. Even Takers only real advantage (WrestleManaia, I don't know what the advantage is but there was a reason Taker won his first 21 matches at Mania) couldn't help him but laying down for the 1,2,3. I don't know what Takers advantage is here. He isn't stronger than Brock, isn't faster, isn't a better wrestler and both he and Brock have main evented some of the biggest PPVs.

I really would love a Taker win here but I gotta be realistic. Taker can beat Brock, that's for sure. I just don't see it being more times than Lesnar beating Taker and if I had a gun to my head asking me to pick one guy if it was their first and only matchup, I'm taking Lesnar.

Vote Brock Lesnar.

 

[The Gribbler]

Who do I think would win? Lesnar.

Who do I think was better? Taker.

Looking at their careers there is no doubt that Brock has had a good run, but very few have had careers as long and successful as the Undertaker.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I think both are great. Undertaker is the greatest character/gimmick ever, and Lesnar is a top five heel of all time. Brock just seems to have Undertaker's number. This really shouldn't be a tough decision to make. Brock wins.

 

[Tastycles]

I understand why you'd vote Lesnar, he did win most if not all of their matches, but the fact remains for me that Lesnar, when all is said and done, will be a negative influence on wrestling history. He may be a draw, although the numbers don't really support that. But he's the opposite of what a wrestler should be - a monster heel should be almost unstoppable, but he's never really stayed around long enough for that to be proven. He just does the unstoppable bit. That's ok for someone like Warrior or Hulk Hogan because they're characters that the audience is supposed to believe in. Lesnar breaks quite a lot of wrestling tropes, and once you've done that, it's hard to go back.

In the 2 years where Lesnar represented WWE's main attraction, they lost more than half of their audience. It's not his fault entirely, of course, but the reason for that is that people don't watch wrestling to see John Cena get annihilated and then nobody avenges him. If and when Roman Reigns beats the piss out of Lesnar, he may come across as less of an anomaly, but for now, he's not in contention for the best wrestler ever, in my estimation.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Well, Undertaker is love, Undertaker is life. He's one of the all time greats. 25 years on top of the food chain. 25 years being a draw, an attraction. Heights and respect that Lesnar can only dream of. That's what you get when you look things from the legit standpoint.

In kayfabe, Undertaker is Lesnar's bitch. Lost to him in a Biker's Chain match, lost twice inside Hell In A Cell and lost to him at Wrestlemania. Also Taker's win-loss record, isn't all that captivating and I don't think that any of the Underakers what we've seen during all those years could beat Lesnar. Phenom post-peak Taker lost (2014). Big Evil lost (2002/2003). I don't think American Badass would have done anything different. Undertaker did nothing special from 2000-2001, except the match with HHH at WM 17.

Obiously pre-1997 Undertaker shouldn't even be brought up.
Undertaker's two peaks are a) 1997-1998 and b) 2007-2008. He did beat Kane in 1998, but lost against all the top stars, Hart, HBK and Austin. He carried Smackdown in 2007-2008, but did lose clean to Batista and was almost equal to him and couldn't get Edge out of the way. A loss from Kozlov doesn't help either..

Lesnar is just a better Undertaker. That's the sad truth. We have to choose between legit facts and kayfabe facts. The match becomes a tie. I'm choosing to go with the kayfabe facts. Undertaker just can't beat Lesnar.

Vote Brock.

 

[Dragon Chief]

Well, Undertaker is love, Undertaker is life. He's one of the all time greats. 25 years on top of the food chain. 25 years being a draw, an attraction. Heights and respect that Lesnar can only dream of. That's what you get when you look things from the legit standpoint.

I agree with some points of your post but not this. Why would a former UFC and NCAA champion want or need the respect that the Undertaker has? Outside of the WWE Undertaker has minimal respect by casuals, while Brock Lesnar is respected greatly by the UFC, WWE, University of Minnesota and by Minnesota as a state all together.

Undertaker earned his respect through his loyalty to one company which is admirable. Brock Lesnar however earned his respect through his athletic ability and all his accolades which Undertaker can only dream of having.

Brock Lesnar is just as big of a draw as Undertaker in the WWE if not bigger, he does get paid much more than the Deadman for just a few more dates. Outside of the WWE, Lesnar is an EVEN BIGGER draw than the Undertaker, he is more desirable and marketable for various athletic brands and is more well known by different types of fans not just wrestling fans.

 

[SSJPhenom]

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?

My point was that if one were to add up all of the years that 'Taker has been one of the main stays of the WWE, then he would be a better draw then Lesnar. I'm not suggesting that 'Taker was a better draw then Lesnar from 02-03 or from 2011-now. Although I could argue that they were about equal from 2011-now given that both were on a very light schedule. Lesnar did appear more than 'Taker, but I'm willing to bet that the events that 'Taker did appear at he was the top draw.

Also, I don't have a problem with Kayfabe arguments. Lesnar had 'Taker's number so odds are that he would have again. Sound argument. What I do have a problem with is how inconsistent and hypocritical the people who participate in this tournament are. For example, in this same tournament, in the earlier rounds, HBK went up against Benoit. Well every time they faced each other in high profile matches, Benoit won. Some people presented that argument and it was all, "But HBK is a bigger name and are you really going to vote against him because he lost a few matches to Benoit"? Well, 'Taker is by far a bigger name and better professional wrestler than Brock. Is Kayfabe really the only side of the coin you people are going to look at?