When I looked at this thread earlier, a perculiar thing happened. my mind had a little conversation with itself:
Me 1: Gotta be Taker
Me 2: What? Why?
Me 1: Well he's just better, isn't her?
Me 2: Makes you say that?
Me 1: Dunno, he just is though...
I wanna investigate this a bit further.
One particular difficulty people have had with this tournament is comparing the primes of two men, when those primes happened to be at radically different times in the chronological spectrum of pro wrestling. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Punk and Thesz thread. It's very difficult comparing the relative skills, drawing power, legacy etc, etc... of two guys when their very best exploits lie a whopping fifty years apart. It also plays a massive part in this match. When Undertaker truly broke in in the early 90s, he broke into the business Macho Man was thriving with gimmicky characters such as himself, a really kid-orientated audience, an old school mesh with a new entertainment system, and he did so with relative success.
Although the Macho King lived through the most of the rest of the 90s, he was never around when the tides were really beginning to change, and moreover, he wasn't in the right company to have noticed. It's difficult to compare an Undertaker who managed to be successful and fresh (with his biker character) through the entirety of the last 20 years, than a guy like Macho Man who never really caught onto the new way with things like the NWO until it was too late for him to capitalise upon. Certainly his best work and best memories will be sourced ultimately from his time in the WWF as was. For the reaper, it'll be more like work from about a decade or more later. The issue is, you can't really envision how they'll book a match between the two if they book it. Do they go traditional and go over the top gimmicky late 80s/early 90s style or do they try brash realistic late 90s/early 00s.
The thing is, when Macho Man was in WCW, he wasn't the guy, he was a guy you could put at the top of the card and know you were getting a great match with, or a guy you could put in a title hunt and make it look believable, just like how The Big Show is used currently. Taker has never really been second fiddle to anyone, think about it. He's never been the face of a company like Hogan or Austin was although he was there when they were, he's never been the guy people look to to lead their company. Does it mean he isn't capable? He's proven, and continues to prove that he himself, his character and persona are a draw despite being often considered horribly outdated. The Undertaker as a character in wrestling is something special. He's never looked weak to anyone. Really search your brain for an example to the contrary. Brock Lesnar: Beat The Rock with relative ease, punished Hulk Hogan in less than 10 minutes, got the better of Big Show on many occasions. With Taker, win or loss, they always went toe-to-toe, and neither guy looked weaker than the other. The same is true of Hogan (1 win and 1 loss in Hogan's prime), Stone Cold (although Austin may have had the edge in 99, Taker had it again in 01 with the power trip situation, level pegs), The Rock no discussion, Kurt Angle, HHH, HBK, Bret Hart, Diesel, Yokozuna, Batista, Orton. These aren't all wrestlemania guys. The point is, unlike Macho Man during his career where he was made to look lesser to guys like Hogan or Warrior even in his prime, or to many guys later in his career, Taker at a ripe old age where he's closer to 50 than 40, never has he even still been made to look than they were at least his equal, and more often his lesser. Macho Man at best was a tough competitor, he survived injuries in matches, interference and some difficult tribulations, but in terms of what guys have had to deal with in kayfabe parameters in wrestling, Taker has probably been through more than just about anybody. All you need do is look at his HIAC matches with anyone past 2000 to see how much punishment he can take and still prevail (the Batista and Kane matches will come back to bite me, but in both cases he had the upper hand until unfair advantages displaced his lead). He can probably endure as much, in a kayfabe setting, as HBK infamously could. Just watch his HHH matches from the last 2 manias. He's probably the toughest guy within the realms of storytelling that there has been. He's tougher than Macho Man. He has the kayfabe advantage. Phew, now that's kayfabe out of the way.
Athough Taker was given what is, I'd say, irrefutably the greatest wrestling character of all time, adaptable to any situation, unageing as a concept and just playing on the perfect ravine between people's hopes and their fears, you'd have to be a thick llunt to claim anything other than that he's pulled off that same character perfectly in accordance of what was expected and probably better than anybody else could have. In contrast, Macho Man more devised his own character, totally original as an idea and unlike anything or anybody, before or since. His interviews are one things that sets him apart from Taker. Whilst Taker could deliver his promos as they needed to be delivered and nothing more, Macho Man went above and beyond in that regard. He has, to this day, probably the most imitable voice of anybody in wrestling history. Macho Man is a gimmick so strong and reeking in potency that is even spurred a gimmick, who's entire point was to imitate what he did and was like. That was, of course, the job of long time fan Jay Lethal. Whilst I love The Undertaker as a concept, and obviously many other still do to this day, The Macho Man was a character as profound as the very best like Piper, Flair, Rhodes, Hogan. Certainly, at the very least in talking terms, Macho Man has the edge. Even in Taker''s biker days where he became quite a good promo guy, he couldn't compare to the cream of the crop.
So for character I give it to Macho Man. Undertaker is the greatest gimmick possible, but not a character and Macho Man did more with less to work with. He wins there.
In the ring? Macho Man delivered some sterling matches including the classic WM 3 match that couldn't go without mention. Revolutionary for it's time. The Undertaker is still drawing people in with the prospect of his matches 20 years down the line, he hasn't lost much. He's produced matches people consider the best of all time in the twilight of his career and has a better rundown than Randy Savage. I'm afraid this one is more cut and dry than people would hope. It's The Undertaker, to be his size and what people would consider one of the bets in-ring guys of all time is phenomenal. It's stellar meets phenomenal, and phenomenal is going to win.
Who's the bigger draw? Well Undertaker's career in the limelight has lasted much longer but his best years and best draws will most probably be better than Macho Man's. Partly because he's been around so long and there's more scope to choose from, but partly because when he's had a solid programme, it's always done good business. Taker and HHH must've drawn a good proportion of the last two years mania buys between them.
I could go on but I'm going to stop here because it's later and I'm tired and I'vr already made up my mind, seemingly before even entered the thread. I'm just lucky that there happens to be the history and facts to sustain it. Macho Man is a true original, but he won't leave a legacy as influential as The Undertaker when push comes to shove. The Undertaker, because he's better, but also because he'd win.
