Int Region, Charlotte Subregion, First Round: (1) Undertaker vs. (32) Vince McMahon

[JGlass]

Anyone arguing for Vince McMahon clearly isn't paying attention to what KB said: WHO IS THE BETTER WRESTLER.

Vince McMahon has never won at WrestleMania. Taker has never lost.

Vince McMahon has won one WWE Title, and one Royal Rumble. Taker has won the WWE title four times, the WHC three times, and a Royal Rumble victory.

Vince McMahon is most famous for owning the WWE and getting his ass kicked by his own wrestlers. Taker is famous for owning his opponents, and getting his ass kicked by nobody.

In a wrestling match, there's no way Vince McMahon walks out of this match. The referee may as well not even be in the match, because Taker is going to be dead set on ending Vince McMahon.

And this whole "Vince owns the company" argument is moot, because this is in the WCW region. If anything, Vince is at a disadvantage because of his relationship with WCW.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Anyone arguing for Vince McMahon clearly isn't paying attention to what KB said: WHO IS THE BETTER WRESTLER.

I'd be careful with that one - Vince's good to bad match ratio is infinitely better than The Undertaker's. The key here is that Vince's matches, good or bad, normally end up in him getting beaten to a pulp and pinned.

 

[JGlass]

I'd be careful with that one - Vince's good to bad match ratio is infinitely better than The Undertaker's. The key here is that Vince's matches, good or bad, normally end up in him getting beaten to a pulp and pinned.

It helps when you only work a few times a year, and you only work with the best talent. Except that little stint with the cheerleaders.

 

[dakikko049]

I'll say the Undertaker because at the end of the day he is a full time wrestler, has one of the most illustrious careers of all time and possibly one of the greatest angles ever- the streak. Vince...OK he owns the show but at the end of the day, Taker isn't going to lose to Vince. I mean the is probably the most prestigious tournament of all time, the Wrestlezone tournament. There can only be one winner in this one.

 

[jtolliver23]

Have to go with the Undertaker here. He has more in ring experience and every time him and Vince have been in the ring together, he has dominated. Based purely on a talent level, it has to go to the Deadman.

 

[peterpib2]

This is determining who the greatest wrestler of all time is. Maybe if it was the promoter, Vince. But no, its gotta be Taker. If he can still take Triple H and HBK 20 years on, he can outdo Vince easy!

 

[TheHeartbreakPunk]

This is undertaker, hands down. He would have the crowd, no doubt about it. If it were a no dq match match where vince could say, beat the hell out of him or youre fired, he would win, but in a standard match environment, undertaker has him beat.

 

[IHW]

Undertaker would pick up the win. It is a wrestling match, and Undertaker is simply a straight up better wrestler. 'Taker wouldn't only win, but he would annihilate Vince. First a Chokeslam, then a Last Ride, then a Tombstone, then the Hells Gate.

 

[pumpkinking8987]

Vince shouldnt be a 32 seed.(THE FACT THAT WE CAN EVEN ARGUE THAT HE COULD WIN PROVES THIS)

Vince would have some tricks up his sleeve, but even when he does he still ends up losing most of the time... Taker wins

 

[AwesomePunk]

Taker for sure but VKM was really good in the ring!! But Taker is hands down the better wrestler!!

 

[ShreddedWheat]

128 wrestlers and there isn't one guy with more in-ring significance than Vince McMahon? Well, either way, I don't see how any amount of trickery would unseat the Deadman, who is zombie-like in his relentless ability to get back up. And let's face it, shenanigans are the the way McMahon would even have a prayer with someone of Undertaker's calibre. No way Vince would have an answer for any of Taker's vast arsenal. Undertaker wins in quick fashion.

 

[Tastycles]

While it would be funny to see Vince go far in this tournament and infuriate the people that take it too seriously, he shouldn't really beat the Undertaker, should he?

Looking at the facts, it's simple. Vince McMahon has beaten hardly anyone in a straight up 1-1 fight. Most of his famous wins have been in no-DQ, street fight, Special Referee handicap type situations. Given that this match has none of those things and is being held in WCW, he really doesn't stand a chance against a man that has lasted longer as a consistent main eventer in his promotion than anybody for about 40 years.

It's not cool, provocative or edgy to vote for a 60-something billionaire, so don't.

 

[Kelso1ftw]

If anyone has seen his passed 4 wrestlemania matches I believe everyone should be picking the Undertaker as those have been some of the best matches in wrestling over the last 4 years

 

[Adalam]

The Deadman vs The Chairman... Deadman all the way. The Undertaker in his prime, and even now is one of the better big men wrestlers around. McMahon is a pseudo-wrestler who pulls a Russo and gives himself the belt, even disregarding any possible prestige or dignity the belt may have had before he booked himself to win (i.e. the ECW World Title, which lost World title status some time afterwards I believe.)

 

[god-soldier]

One fist one chokeslam and a tombstone R.I.P. McMahon Undertaker wins!!!!!!

 

[VinceHatesWrestling]

Hate to say it but Undertaker would win, but Vince would be way more entertaining, actually a rotting giraffe corpse covered in White Chocolate frosting would be more entertaining the the Underseller.

 

[guhboy12]

Taker is and always has been my favorite. Even though he hasn't been lucky in previous match-ups with McMahon, at this point in time since he is nearing the end of his career, I can only believe that with this being 15yrs in the making...

The Undertaker > Vincent Kennedy McMahon

 

[Brian O'Regan]

Despite the tendancy to screw peple on air this is a competition where we pick the best wrestler or so i assume,

Undertaker wins

 

[e72882]

Undertaker vs Vince McMahon. This goes to the Undertaker for all of the normal reasons, but it also goes to him because this is under WCW rules and Vince McMahon would lose simply for this reason. Ted Turner wouldn't put Vince over and neither would Bischoff. Besides the Undertaker would be more over in WCW than Vince ever would.

 

[GI Cake]

How can anyone make a valid case for Vince fucking McMahon to win over the Undertaker in a WCW setting? Then again, how can anyone make a sound debate as to Vince McMahon going over the Undertaker, period. Taker is an absolute monster in the ring. He has beaten anyone and everyone who is a name in his career. He has taken on armies of goons and wiped the floor with them, he has been buried alive, but come right back up. I don't see how Vince McMahon will be able to come away with beating the Deadman.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

If it wasn't a standard 1 on 1 match I may have taken Vince for the major upset but because its standard one on one it makes it a lot harder for Vince to get help and cheat his way to victory.

Vince does hold a victory over The Undertaker but when you got Kane helping you it makes it easier. Vince would have to win this match on his own acumen and there is no way he would be able to match up to Taker in any way.

This match would probably be a while but it would mostly be Undertaker pounding the living crap out of Vince throughout most of it. Vince would probably try and get help but it can only go so far in a 1 on 1 match, you can't have a 5 minute beatdown of Taker using outside interference in a standard match. He may get someone big to get some shots in with Taker but it wouldn't be enough and Taker would finish Vince off with a tombstone for the 3 count.

 

[CrissSpades]

Vince McMahon was only a wrestler for storyline reasons. Unlike Undertaker who has worked the full time schedule from 1990 until he slowed it down around 2010. That's 20 years of full time service (minus the injuries). Vince McMahon will only be remembered for two things: Being CEO and Chairman and mainly responsible for bringing the WWE to levels Vince McMahon Senior would not have imagined. And his rivalry with Stone Cold Steve Austin. So, without a shadow of a doubt, its The Undertaker who is my pick.

 

[Natural Selection]

Yeah but Vince pays ALL the referees and therefore they would all help him if they wanted a job.

Taker goes to chokeslam a third referee but is stopped by the rest of the locker room, why? because Vince pays all of them aswell

They beat the shit out of the Undertaker and Vince gets the pin.

This is a standard non gimmick match, there is no way in hell Vince wins. This is Kane/Chavo quick. Like Nick said if this was the final round I might be compelled to put together an argument for Vince, but its not. This is the first round and thus not important enough for Vince to pull out all the stops to beat Taker(I.E The Buried Alive match) He used heavy interfernce in that after a substantial build Kayfabe: Thus giving him enough time to recruit the help he needed(Kane) In the first round he wouldn't have enough time to recruit anyone strong enough to stop the Deadman. Sure maybe a ref or two. Hell maybe HHH, but in the end not enough to stop Taker.

 

[Natural Selection]

Hate to say it but Undertaker would win, but Vince would be way more entertaining, actually a rotting giraffe corpse covered in White Chocolate frosting would be more entertaining the the Underseller.

Vince would be more entertaining in the ring? Are you fucking serious? Did you see the buried alive match? Vince's most believable match to me is either against Stone Cold at St. Valeintines Day Massacre or against Shane at WM17 and both of those are for story line purposes only. If this was a legit head to head Vince would be about as entertaining as he was against Bret where he literally just laid there.

Finish: Kick to the gut then tombstone 1-2-3, match duration 9seconds.


How do you manage to get red rep with five post? By being a fucking spamming ass troll that's how. Seriously do us a favor and take a step back and literally fuck your face.

 

[Coco]

Throwing out kayfabe silliness for a second, I don't think anyone's really given Vince a fair shake here. When talking about the greatest professional wrestler, I don't think one has to wrestle consistently or even win to be one of the greats. Vince is the real top villain and half of the winning equation in one of WWE's most successful eras ever. He's a bigger star than Taker could ever dream of being. For all intents and purposes, he's one of the hottest entities professional wrestling has ever known. If we're looking at wrestling as a television show and see Vince as the great character that he is, it would take a Hogan or an Austin to overcome him. As great as Taker is, he's not on that level.

Vote: Vince McMahon