Miami Region, Fifth Round: (1) Undertaker vs. (2) Randy Savage

[SSJPhenom]

Really? Calling Randy Savage a better worker than HBK is an example of stupidity? Really? When Savage was active in the WWF, he was easily the best "worker" on the WWF roster not named Ricky Steamboat. If Steamboat was #1, Savage was #1a. If you knew anything about Randy Savage's incredible career, about what he actually was able to do in the ring, you never would have mocked Joaquin's cleft lip for suggesting it.

Because if Randy Savage isn't better than HBK, it's so damn close that nobody would be stupid for suggesting it. If Joaquin had said that Jack Swagger was a better worker than HBK? Sure. It would be ridiculously stupid. But Randy Savage? Kid, it's time to brush up on wrestlers that were in their primes before you born, that way you wouldn't come across as such a total ignoramus. The only case rested by your mockery of Joaquin for claiming Savage was better than HBK is that you are a dumbass who knows jack shit about Randy Savage's career.

Sir, I know plenty about Randy Savage's career and for you to suggest that I don't just because I happen to think that HBK is a better in-ring performer than Savage is ridiculous as well. I didn't grow up with Savage from the 80's like some did. I did watch Savage all throughout the 90's though and I purchased his DVD because I love Randy Savage and always will. Having said that, I still think that HBK was a better in-ring performer than Savage. So just because I think that HBK was better that makes me, "a dumbass who knows jack shit about Savage's career"? Really? You may prefer Savage to HBK, I however do not and for you to mock me because I'm not a Savage fan boy like most around here shows more about you than it does me. The only reason I mocked him was because he mocked me. Turn about is fair play and what business is it of yours?

I don't even know what this bullshit has to do with the matter at hand. I never said that Savage was a horrible in-ring performer. I've always considered him one of the best. Just like I consider 'Taker to be one of the best. I swear, give an opinion that goes away from the status quo of Savage fan boys around here and you better watch out.

Vote 'Taker.

 

[Davi323]

It's fine if you think HBK was better. That wasn't the point. The point was you went out of your way to suggest that Joaquin was stupid for putting Savage over HBK. If you had just said, "No way! HBK was better!" Rather than making a total ass out of yourself by calling him stupid for his opinion, we aren't having this discussion.

I didn't call you out for disagreeing with Joaquin, I called you out because you called him stupid for his opinion...an opinion that is not only non-stupid, but would be shared by a lot of people. I called you out because you totally mocked him for stating something that is as far from ridiculous as it gets, and then cocked off with your "I rest my case" comment, as if it proved anything at all.

 

[SSJPhenom]

It's fine if you think HBK was better. That wasn't the point. The point was you went out of your way to suggest that Joaquin was stupid for putting Savage over HBK. If you had just said, "No way! HBK was better!" Rather than making a total ass out of yourself by calling him stupid for his opinion, we aren't having this discussion.

I didn't call you out for disagreeing with Joaquin, I called you out because you called him stupid for his opinion...an opinion that is not only non-stupid, but would be shared by a lot of people. I called you out because you totally mocked him for stating something that is as far from ridiculous as it gets, and then cocked off with your "I rest my case" comment, as if it proved anything at all.

You're right, we're not having this discussion.

The reason that I did that was because the person called me stupid for suggesting that 'Taker was actually a good in-ring performer. I said what I said because he said that 'Taker was a shitty in-ring performer and that is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Davi323]

You're right, we're not having this discussion.

The reason that I did that was because the person called me stupid for suggesting that 'Taker was actually a good in-ring performer. I said what I said because he said that 'Taker was a shitty in-ring performer and that is a ridiculous statement.

And where, oh where, did I defend Joaquin's comments about that? I don't give a flying fuck what he said about Undertaker's in-ring ability, it's irrelevant to your asinine statement that it was stupid to think that Savage was a better worker than HBK. Joaquin being 100% wrong about that doesn't change the fact that mocking anyone thinking Savage could conceivably be better than HBK is just as dumb. This isn't a two idiotic comments make a right kind of deal.

And if we aren't having this conversion, why did you reply?

 

[SSJPhenom]

And where, oh where, did I defend Joaquin's comments about that? I don't give a flying fuck what he said about Undertaker's in-ring ability, it's irrelevant to your asinine statement that it was stupid to think that Savage was a better worker than HBK. Joaquin being 100% wrong about that doesn't change the fact that mocking anyone thinking Savage could conceivably be better than HBK is just as dumb. This isn't a two idiotic comments make a right kind of deal.

And if we aren't having this conversion, why did you reply?

I just wanted you to know why I said what I said. You know, Savage/HBK would've been a hell of match though. Just like Steamboat/HBK would've been a hell of a match. That's not the point of this thread though.

Savage had a history of having trouble against people that were bigger than him. Undertaker falls into that category. It would take more punishment than the Macho Man could dish out to keep 'Taker down. Also, 'Taker has beaten a number of wrestlers that have also beaten Savage. I just can't see Savage taking this match. It would be one hell of match, but 'Taker would win with the Tombstone.

Vote 'Taker.

 

[Miko]

To Joaquin's cleft lip:

You saying that 'Taker was boring from bell to bell is an opinion based argument and a shitty one at best. I'll admit that he was boring in most of his matches in the early 90's but for you to say that he was even more boring after the early 90's shows how stupid you are sir. He didn't start really showing his versatility in the ring until around '96.

Yeah, Undertaker was better in the early 90's than he was in the attitude era, he wasnt particularly good in the early 90's but his ring work plummeted in the attitude era, here is a sample;

[YOUTUBE]HZOBGtXDVGU [/YOUTUBE]

Until Austin gets involved this is one of the worst matches I've ever had to sit through, it's not even so bad it's good. There are plenty more like this as well.

Also all of the wrestlers that you mentioned that 'Taker has lost to(Orton, Ken Anderson, etc); yes he's lost a singles match or two against them, but I can clearly remember him winning the overall feud against them.

Still lost enough to make it count though didnt he, besides, this isnt exactly the last match in a fued, this is exactly the kind of situation a heel Savage, or even a face Savage goes over.

Him losing to those guys just goes to my point about 'Taker putting over more talent than Savage.

It's a point I never argued against, although I am sure you're wrong on this one as well.

Also, if you want to use a kayfabe argument then how about this one: 'Taker has beaten Hogan twice, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Ted Dibiase, Ultimate Warrior, and DDP. What do all of these guys have in common? They've all beaten Randy Savage before. So 'Taker would also beat Randy Savage.

Wrong! Trust me, I know these things. Savage has beaten Warrior though, and although Taker fans wont want to admit it, Taker and Warrior have a lot in common, idiotic promo's, no-selling, come from a strange place. If he could beat Warrior, who was tougher than Undertaker, he could beat Undertaker.

By the late 90's the choking and hissing, as you put it, had pretty much went away and when he got into the ring with guys that weren't horrible gimmick wrestlers(I.E. Giant Gonzalez, Kamala) he put on great performances from bell to bell.

Yeah, check out the match I posted, it's shit, contains both the choking and hissing, dont make me look for more, because I'll find them.

Also, he had a great match with Austin for the WWF Title in the Summer of '97 and they had a good match at Summer Slam '98. Go back and watch these matches please and tell me what was bad about them. After you do that, tell me what you consider makes a good match.

Seen them, decent matches, with a fantastic wrestler in Austin, they pale in comparison to Austin's other work with so many other wrestlers though.

I've said this before, it was when he started his feud with Foley in '96 that 'Taker really began to show what he could do in the ring. I never once said that Savage was a horrible in-ring performer and I never will. I mean, most of his stuff in WCW was god awful, but in his prime in the WWF/E, the man was golden in the ring. For you to make 'Taker out to be some sort of horrible in-ring competitor though, shows more of your stupidity than it does anyone else's.

Not really, I've posted that pile of shit above already, most of his matches werent much better than that, let me tell you.

Another example of your stupidity is in your above post you called Savage a better worker than Shawn Michaels:



I rest my case.

Yup. You really should.

You're right, we're not having this discussion.

The reason that I did that was because the person called me stupid for suggesting that 'Taker was actually a good in-ring performer. I said what I said because he said that 'Taker was a shitty in-ring performer and that is a ridiculous statement.

Actually, you know what, I didnt call you stupid for considering someone a good wrestler. I am calling you stupid because I said Taker's matches were boring, you called me out on calling Taker's storylines boring, I never once said anything about his storylines. You then did it twice more in that same post, before accusing me of backtracking. It was stupid. You cant see that, because you're stupid.

 

[SSJPhenom]

You conveniently found one of 'Taker's worst matches from the Attitude Era to post. I never said that all of his matches were absolutely great from the Attitude Era. Just that by the Attitude Era, 'Taker was a better in-ring performer than he was in the early 90's. Hell, everybody has bad matches. Your posting of one of 'Taker's bad matches proves absolutely nothing. He and Kane had several matches from that time period that were way better than that. WM 14 and the Inferno Match come to mind.

Also, to your point about Savage beating Warrior. If 'Taker can beat several people that have beaten Savage and he's beaten them more than once, then trust me, 'Taker could beat Savage. Like I said, Savage had a history of having problems with people that were bigger than him. Savage just wouldn't be able to keep 'Taker down for the 3 count in this match.

Everything that you've posted about 'Taker being shit in the ring, whether it be in the early 90's, the Attitude Era, or beyond is purely opinion. I just can't understand how you can call the guy horrible in the ring. I mean, if that is really your opinion then cool, but in this case, I'd feel very comfortable in calling your opinion asinine. I mean, I could find several matches from Savage that were anything but great if you want me too, but it wouldn't prove a damn thing. As I said, everybody has bad matches. I could just as easily find several 'Taker matches that are excellent and of course you'd say that it was who he was in the ring with and 'Taker had nothing to do with it and that again would be asinine and stupid, but that wouldn't prove anything in this debate either.

Vote 'Taker

 

[The Brain]

You would think as we move further along in the tournament it would become more fun to post. I'm finding it to be the opposite because we are at the point where either man could advance so I honestly don't have much of an argument one way or the other. If I was voting for the one I liked better or enjoyed watching more I would vote Savage. However, I think Taker would win a match between the two. When I visualize this match I don't see Savage keeping Taker down for a three count but I could easily see Savage falling victim to a tombstone after a great and hard fought match.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

You would think as we move further along in the tournament it would become more fun to post. I'm finding it to be the opposite because we are at the point where either man could advance so I honestly don't have much of an argument one way or the other. If I was voting for the one I liked better or enjoyed watching more I would vote Savage. However, I think Taker would win a match between the two. When I visualize this match I don't see Savage keeping Taker down for a three count but I could easily see Savage falling victim to a tombstone after a great and hard fought match.

I feel exactly the same as Brain about the tournament now, it is getting harder and harder to make a convincing argument for anyone, as each match could go either way!

There would no argument from me if Savage beat Undertaker in this, but the more I think about it, the more I see The Deadman coming out on top. To pick who to vote for has been a difficult decision, and reading through people's arguments has seen my pick change several times.

However, the only thing that decided it is that I cannot see Savage pinning 'Taker after the elbow drop. HBK has landed a top rope elbow on 'Taker several times and yet never pinned him after it, and I see 'Taker kicking out of a Savage elbow too. Plus, it takes alot of time to climb to the top rope in a match that would take so much out of Savage, and I don't think Undi' would stay down long enough.

A Tombstone is alot easier to set up than Savage's elbow, and I think that seals the deal for me. Undertaker to win.

 

[Miko]

I know Savage has already lost, but. . .

You would think as we move further along in the tournament it would become more fun to post. I'm finding it to be the opposite because we are at the point where either man could advance so I honestly don't have much of an argument one way or the other.

but you posted anyway, terrific.

However, I think Taker would win a match between the two. When I visualize this match I don't see Savage keeping Taker down for a three count but I could easily see Savage falling victim to a tombstone after a great and hard fought match.

Oh yeah, because Undertaker's never been kept down by people of a similar size to Savage has he? He's never had trouble with sneaky heels has he?

I am being sarcastic by the way, if Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Chris Jericho, Randy Orton and Ken Anderson can all find ways to keep the "almighty" Undertaker down, then I am pretty sure Randy Savage can keep the Undertaker down. Not like he was one of them nobody mid-carders that Taker used to fued against is it?

I feel exactly the same as Brain about the tournament now, it is getting harder and harder to make a convincing argument for anyone, as each match could go either way!

There would no argument from me if Savage beat Undertaker in this, but the more I think about it, the more I see The Deadman coming out on top. To pick who to vote for has been a difficult decision, and reading through people's arguments has seen my pick change several times.

However, the only thing that decided it is that I cannot see Savage pinning 'Taker after the elbow drop. HBK has landed a top rope elbow on 'Taker several times and yet never pinned him after it, and I see 'Taker kicking out of a Savage elbow too.

What's the difference between Stone Cold flipping off the crowd and dropping an elbow and The Rock doing the People's Elbow? Oh yeah, one's a finisher that wins matches, the other is just a move. As someone that used prime HBK's wins over Taker to make a point for Savage, I have to say that this is pretty fucking stupid.

Plus, it takes alot of time to climb to the top rope in a match that would take so much out of Savage, and I don't think Undi' would stay down long enough.

lol okay. . .

A Tombstone is alot easier to set up than Savage's elbow, and I think that seals the deal for me. Undertaker to win.

Standing 69's arent actually as easy as climbing up a turnbuckle, I thought everybody knew this. . .



A vote for Undertaker is a vote for a guy who was handed one of the best gimmicks of all time, where he only has to turn up in eyeliner and look intimidating, everything else is done for him, a guy that is too lazy to attend HOF events, a guy who nearly every finisher he does involves someones crotch in someone else's face, and last but not least, a vote for shit like this;

[YOUTUBE]HZOBGtXDVGU[/YOUTUBE]

and this

[YOUTUBE]w7NsoU0gD8c[/YOUTUBE]

You could throw in Taker vs Yokozuna as well, Undertaker and Kane vs Kronik obviously. All of his early streak matches, and a lot of his later ones should be thrown in here. Triple H vs Undertaker; King Of the Ring 2002.

Then you match Taker up against someone like Randy Savage, who it would be a massive understatement to say he's never done anywhere near as bad the crap Taker has churned out over the years, add in the fact that several people have proved in this very thread that kayfabe wise Savage can beat Undertaker and he has a longer World title reign than all of Undertakers combined, what other reason to is there to vote Undertaker other than blind fanboyism or the fact that you dont actually know who Randy Savage is?

Bad form.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

The way he wins is irrelevant. Savage has been able to beat just about everyone in history consistently using his antics, I don't see why that wouldn't serve him well here. It's the way he wins.

You know why those wins happen that way. Usually, some guy is involved in some feud with another guy and that guy ends up attacking him when he is outside the ring. I am honestly interested in seeing how many of Savage's matches ended via countout due to him knocking the other guy out of the ring or just his manager interfering at his behest and not someone else coming out and attacking Hogan, Warrior or whoever else who was feuding with Savage at that time.

I am essentially looking at this match and this tournament as a whole as a one off thing. I am looking at this as if Savage and Taker are having a match with each other and niether of them are involved in a feud with either each other or anyone else at this point. In such a scenario, I feel Undertaker would win.

Well, it was a midcard feud, the matches happened in the middle of the card. That's what midcard means.

They don't build WrestleMania around Taker at all. Even when he headlined (3 out of 20 occasions), his feud wasn't the one that most programming was dedicated to.

I'd say that most of Taker's matches with Orton were towards the upper half of the card.

And while WWE does not build WrestleMania around Taker, there is no disputing the fact that Undertaker's match has always been a big attraction at the biggest show of the year. Savage was a great wrestler but he does not have the same aura around him that Taker does.

Taker has never had the main role though.

Niether did Andre The Giant except for one feud. That does not make Andre any less special than anyone save for maybe the likes of Hogan and Austin.

And as for standing out. The Gobbledygooker and Shockmaster are remembered more than Barry Windham. Uniqueness doesn't mean quality.

Fine, Taker has talent as well as uniqueness in his game and both of them combined make him stand out more than Savage. For all the right reasons too, mind you.

This is just wrong. For a number of reasons. Firstly, that story was about Savage's jealousy, not Hogan. Secondly, longevity? Well taker's career has been longer in the WWE, but he's achieved less. Inefficiency is probably a more accurate description.

You can twist that either way. The focus was also on Hogan being wrongfully treated by a friend because of his paranoia. Either way, I do not think that it would have become as big an angle without the involvement of Hogan.

As for Taker achieving less, well different eras play a part in that too. For example, if the Mega Powers story happened today, it would probably finish in just 4-5 months. Most of Undertaker's title runs have come in the Attitude Era or later when quick title changes have become the norm. For that matter, how many times did Savage even defend the WWF belt when he was champion before losing to Hogan. Possibly just a handful of times.

Also, like I said, Taker was never supposed to win a lot of championships. He was supposed to be this era's Andre. Someone who is almost impossible to beat cleanly and someone who scares the shit out of his opponent. I think WWE has succeeded in making him what they set out to make him. And they have always set out to make him bigger than Savage.

So what this proves is, people of Savage's height and stature can beat Undertaker, cheers. Lets not forget that Shawn Michaels is heavily inspired by Savage, from the selling, to the elbow drop. If Michaels can beat Undertaker, a better worker like Savage can.

It also proves that Undertaker can beat guys Savage's size and would probably do so here as well as he has a good record against those guys.

Doesnt help that Undertaker is still active, whereas the other pissed off the boss and has been swept under the rug though does it?

Savage did not do too hot in WCW either. Sure he won 4 championships but he was never a major player over there.

If Undertaker has been a Main Eventer for a longer period of time, how come his combined title runs dont come anywhere near that of Savage?

A combination of the facts that Undertaker's successes came in a later era where short title reigns had become the norm and the fact that winning championships was never the objective that WWF had set out for Undertaker's character. He has, for most part of his career, been promoted as a guy who has been above the belt. The only time that has been untrue was during a 5 year period during the Attitude Era.

 

[Davi323]

What a lot of people are doing is confusing the Undertaker at Wrestlemania with the Undertaker every other day of the year. The Undertaker, when you look at his career as a whole, and not just on the 20 Wrestlemania matches, was very beatable. For 364 days out of the year, he had losses to pretty much every main eventer on the roster. Yet, because he won 20 specific matches in his entire career, some against scrubs that were fed to him to either specifically boost the streak or because he wasn't in the title picture, somehow, he is invulnerable? As long as this Tournament doesn't occur at Wrestlemania, the Undertaker is VERY beatable. Don't let the legend of the Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak get in the way of reality. The Undertaker, for 364 days out of the year, is a pretty good wrestler with a pretty good record, but that's it. His myth has definitely outgrown his reality.

For 364 days out of the year, he is JUST LIKE A LOT OF OTHER GUYS.

Randy Savage was that damn good, every day of the year.

 

[Miko]

You know why those wins happen that way. Usually, some guy is involved in some feud with another guy and that guy ends up attacking him when he is outside the ring. I am honestly interested in seeing how many of Savage's matches ended via countout due to him knocking the other guy out of the ring or just his manager interfering at his behest and not someone else coming out and attacking Hogan, Warrior or whoever else who was feuding with Savage at that time.

I am essentially looking at this match and this tournament as a whole as a one off thing. I am looking at this as if Savage and Taker are having a match with each other and niether of them are involved in a feud with either each other or anyone else at this point. In such a scenario, I feel Undertaker would win.

Actually, you yourself just pointed out one of the most likely scenarios above. In a tournament to determine the best ever, no way does Taker win, he loses in a cheap way, round about this point, to someone like Randy Savage. He's not good enough.

The only way its happening is if Vince McMahon has just found out that Savage fucked Stephanie, literally five minutes before the match starts and changes the outcome. (Note, this isnt serious, even then Vince would know not to do something so stupid.)

It also proves that Undertaker can beat guys Savage's size and would probably do so here as well as he has a good record against those guys.

Add in Bret Hart to the smaller guys, the record is even at best, and that is stretching it.

The deadman is mortal!

A combination of the facts that Undertaker's successes came in a later era where short title reigns had become the norm

So when Undertaker was arguably at his most dominant after his debut, he still wasnt good enough to take the belt from the likes of Savage and Hogan for a significant period of time, and when short title reigns and hot potatoing became the norm, Undertaker got a few runs but was still well behind the pack. See? He's shit.

and the fact that winning championships was never the objective that WWF had set out for Undertaker's character. He has, for most part of his career, been promoted as a guy who has been above the belt. The only time that has been untrue was during a 5 year period during the Attitude Era.

This is just a lie put about by people that cant handle that their favourite wrestler has less title runs than other, more dependable, better wrestlers from the time period.

 

[Larry]

I'm not going to get knee deep in this one, I'm saving it for later when Undertaker advances, but he should win this match, as he is. I love Savage, but even early on upon debuting Undertaker beat Hulk Hogan, a guy who beat Savage clean in his prime. That alone should say Undertaker > Savage.

 

[Tastycles]

You know why those wins happen that way. Usually, some guy is involved in some feud with another guy and that guy ends up attacking him when he is outside the ring. I am honestly interested in seeing how many of Savage's matches ended via countout due to him knocking the other guy out of the ring or just his manager interfering at his behest and not someone else coming out and attacking Hogan, Warrior or whoever else who was feuding with Savage at that time.

Apart from one time when Rude distracted Warrior, this never happened to my recollection. Sherri or Elizabeth might be involved from time to time, but there's no reason to suggest that wouldn't be the case here.

I'd say that most of Taker's matches with Orton were towards the upper half of the card.

WrestleMania 21 - 3rd match of 8
Summerslam 2005 - 5th match of 8

Midcard. The only times they were higher was on brand specific PPVs.

And while WWE does not build WrestleMania around Taker, there is no disputing the fact that Undertaker's match has always been a big attraction at the biggest show of the year. Savage was a great wrestler but he does not have the same aura around him that Taker does.

It's been an attraction recently. Nobody cared about Undertaker vs. King Kong Bundy, or even Mark Henry.

Niether did Andre The Giant except for one feud. That does not make Andre any less special than anyone save for maybe the likes of Hogan and Austin.

Andre the Giant barely wrestled in a period with episodic television.

Fine, Taker has talent as well as uniqueness in his game and both of them combined make him stand out more than Savage. For all the right reasons too, mind you.

He has less talent. And standing out is irrelevant.

You can twist that either way. The focus was also on Hogan being wrongfully treated by a friend because of his paranoia. Either way, I do not think that it would have become as big an angle without the involvement of Hogan.

No shit, doesn't detract from the fact that Savage was the principal figure.

As for Taker achieving less, well different eras play a part in that too. For example, if the Mega Powers story happened today, it would probably finish in just 4-5 months. Most of Undertaker's title runs have come in the Attitude Era or later when quick title changes have become the norm. For that matter, how many times did Savage even defend the WWF belt when he was champion before losing to Hogan. Possibly just a handful of times.

Like I said before, Savage's second title reign came long after Undertaker debuted, and it's longer than any of Taker's reigns.

Also, like I said, Taker was never supposed to win a lot of championships. He was supposed to be this era's Andre. Someone who is almost impossible to beat cleanly and someone who scares the shit out of his opponent. I think WWE has succeeded in making him what they set out to make him. And they have always set out to make him bigger than Savage.

Except, you know, the part where the big wrestlers are the ones the company focusses on. Andre was a consistent main eventer, Taker has never been. Andre was a draw, Taker has never been.

It also proves that Undertaker can beat guys Savage's size and would probably do so here as well as he has a good record against those guys.

Savage has a winning record against Crush, who is almost exactly the same size as Undertaker. It's irrelevant.

Savage did not do too hot in WCW either. Sure he won 4 championships but he was never a major player over there.

Yeah, he headlined Starrcade. Next!

A combination of the facts that Undertaker's successes came in a later era where short title reigns had become the norm and the fact that winning championships was never the objective that WWF had set out for Undertaker's character. He has, for most part of his career, been promoted as a guy who has been above the belt. The only time that has been untrue was during a 5 year period during the Attitude Era.

You're dead wrong. Before the attitude era he was feuding with Mabel. After the Attitude Era he was feuding with A-Train.

Also, short reigns were the norm, but The Undertaker had the shortest of the big players:

For the period WrestleMania XIV to X-Seven:

The Undertaker's average reign: 36 days

The Rock's average reign: 44 days
Steve Austin's average reign: 73 days
Kurt Angle's average reign: 126 days
Triple H's average reign: 56 Days
Big Show's average reign: 50 days

The Undertaker ranked above Mankind, Kane and Vince McMahon, of whom only Foley was ever a true main eventer.

For the sake of comparison,

From the period of WrestleMania IV to WrestleMania X (Savage's pomp)

Randy Savage's average reign: 260 days

Hulk Hogan's average reign: 137 days
Sgt Slaughter's average reign: 64 days
Ric Flair's average reign: 59 days
Bret Hart's average reign: 174 days
Yokozuna's average reign: 140 days
Undertaker's average reign: 6 days

Only Ultimate Warrior was better.

In short, Undertaker is a pisspoor champion.

 

[Larry]

You're dead wrong. Before the attitude era he was feuding with Mabel. After the Attitude Era he was feuding with A-Train.

Also, short reigns were the norm, but The Undertaker had the shortest of the big players:

For the period WrestleMania XIV to X-Seven:

The Undertaker's average reign: 36 days

The Rock's average reign: 44 days
Steve Austin's average reign: 73 days
Kurt Angle's average reign: 126 days
Triple H's average reign: 56 Days
Big Show's average reign: 50 days

The Undertaker ranked above Mankind, Kane and Vince McMahon, of whom only Foley was ever a true main eventer.

For the sake of comparison,

From the period of WrestleMania IV to WrestleMania X (Savage's pomp)

Randy Savage's average reign: 260 days

Hulk Hogan's average reign: 137 days
Sgt Slaughter's average reign: 64 days
Ric Flair's average reign: 59 days
Bret Hart's average reign: 174 days
Yokozuna's average reign: 140 days
Undertaker's average reign: 6 days

Only Ultimate Warrior was better.

In short, Undertaker is a pisspoor champion.

I don't have any reason to take issue with everything else you said, some of it I agreed with some of it I didn't, but this particular part here is what's caught my interest over everything else. Would you care to disclose where and how you got those numbers and how you did your math to conclude them to be accurate? I'm just curious because those numbers don't quite seem right, or it seems that the way you've presented them is....questionable, as to their legitimacy regarding the impact their intended to make on your argument. Why not use total days, or length of individual reigns rather than coming up with an average that we have no way of knowing is accurate or not simply based on your word that it is? Why come up with an average when simpler numbers would seemingly prove your point just as easily, unless they do not?

 

[Nate DaMac]

I don't have any reason to take issue with everything else you said, some of it I agreed with some of it I didn't, but this particular part here is what's caught my interest over everything else. Would you care to disclose where and how you got those numbers and how you did your math to conclude them to be accurate? I'm just curious because those numbers don't quite seem right, or it seems that the way you've presented them is....questionable, as to their legitimacy regarding the impact their intended to make on your argument. Why not use total days, or length of individual reigns rather than coming up with an average that we have no way of knowing is accurate or not simply based on your word that it is? Why come up with an average when simpler numbers would seemingly prove your point just as easily, unless they do not?

It's not skewed at all. During the time-frame he's showing, which is from WM4-WM10, The Undertaker had one title reign that lasted 6 days. Thus, the average length of an Undertaker title reign during this time was 6 days.

I'm assuming you missed something, it's pretty cut and dry.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I don't have any reason to take issue with everything else you said, some of it I agreed with some of it I didn't, but this particular part here is what's caught my interest over everything else. Would you care to disclose where and how you got those numbers and how you did your math to conclude them to be accurate? I'm just curious because those numbers don't quite seem right, or it seems that the way you've presented them is....questionable, as to their legitimacy regarding the impact their intended to make on your argument. Why not use total days, or length of individual reigns rather than coming up with an average that we have no way of knowing is accurate or not simply based on your word that it is? Why come up with an average when simpler numbers would seemingly prove your point just as easily, unless they do not?

Not that hard to comprehend. If you knew that Undertaker only had one title reign during the time period he mentioned and knew that his reign only lasted six days, than 6/1 = 6.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't have any reason to take issue with everything else you said, some of it I agreed with some of it I didn't, but this particular part here is what's caught my interest over everything else. Would you care to disclose where and how you got those numbers and how you did your math to conclude them to be accurate? I'm just curious because those numbers don't quite seem right, or it seems that the way you've presented them is....questionable, as to their legitimacy regarding the impact their intended to make on your argument. Why not use total days, or length of individual reigns rather than coming up with an average that we have no way of knowing is accurate or not simply based on your word that it is? Why come up with an average when simpler numbers would seemingly prove your point just as easily, unless they do not?

Just a pretty standard way of representing statistics. If anything, longest reign in the same period enhances my point:

WrestleMania XIV to WrestleMania X-Seven

The Undertaker's longest reign: 36 days

The Rock's longest reign: 119 days
Steve Austin's longest reign: 91 days
Kurt Angle's longest reign: 126 days
Triple H's longest reign: 118 Days
Big Show's longest reign: 50 days

The Undertaker ranked above Mankind, Kane and Vince McMahon, of whom only Foley was ever a true main eventer.

WrestleMania IV to WrestleMania X (Savage's pomp)

Randy Savage's longest reign: 371 days

Hulk Hogan's longest reign: 364 days
Sgt Slaughter's longest reign: 64 days
Ric Flair's longest reign: 77 days
Bret Hart's longest reign: 174 days
Yokozuna's longest reign: 280 days
Undertaker's longest reign: 6 days

 

[The Brain]

If I was voting for the one I liked better or enjoyed watching more I would vote Savage.

what other reason to is there to vote Undertaker other than blind fanboyism or the fact that you dont actually know who Randy Savage is?

Bad form.

Well I said I liked Savage better so it isn't "blind fanboyism." I am well aware of who Randy Savage is so it can't be that either. So why did I vote for Taker? It must be because I feel he would defeat Savage in this match. Is it really inconceivable to you that Undertaker could beat Randy Savage? Does that sound far fetched? If it does I suggest that you may be letting blind fanboyism play a role in your decision. I could see Savage winning but I believe Taker is more likely to win. You've done a nice job of running down one of the most popular and successful wrestlers of the past twenty years but that probably wasn't the best approach to take. Instead you probably should have focused on the positives of Randy Savage and used some examples of big victories in his career that would support your theory that he could beat Taker.

 

[Miko]

Well I said I liked Savage better so it isn't "blind fanboyism." I am well aware of who Randy Savage is so it can't be that either. So why did I vote for Taker? It must be because I feel he would defeat Savage in this match. Is it really inconceivable to you that Undertaker could beat Randy Savage? Does that sound far fetched?

Sadly it doesnt, what is inconceivable is why anybody would vote for the most overrated sack of crap to ever get into a wrestling ring and who has a history of some of the worst matches of all time, over Randy Savage. The worst part being, the arguments for Savage include, Savage was a better wrestler, Savage was a better Champion, Savage was a more consistent Main Eventer, Savage was a champion for longer, Savage is responsible for some of the greatest matches of all time and Undertaker doesnt have a great record against highly skilled, smaller wrestlers.

I guess I was being generous when I forgot to include stupidity as a reason for voting Undertaker in the face of all the facts.

If it does I suggest that you may be letting blind fanboyism play a role in your decision. I could see Savage winning but I believe Taker is more likely to win.

That and I prefer good wrestling and would rather the much, much better man advances.

You've done a nice job of running down one of the most popular and successful wrestlers of the past twenty years but that probably wasn't the best approach to take.

Thank you, I made a bit of an effort in this thread.

Instead you probably should have focused on the positives of Randy Savage and used some examples of big victories in his career that would support your theory that he could beat Taker.

Fuck that, other, better posters than me were doing that early on in this thread and Taker was up by nearly 20 points, because no matter how much you point out someones awesomeness, the fact that they could and probably would win the match, you're faced with a mindset like this;

Taker would dismantle Savage. In ring it would take more than Savage has to keep Taker down for the 3. Eventually Savage would put him down long enough for the elbow, but Taker would kick out, sit up and bash Savage. Tombstone ends it.

The Match as I see J.R. calling it:

"Savage hits the elbow drop, 1.....2....he's gonna beat.......and The Undertaker kicks out. Oh my King, he just sat up. Look at the look on the face of the Macho Man. Right hands from the Undertaker, he throws him into the corner; 300lb splash, he scoops him up, snake eyes. Oh what a running big boot. 'Taker drops the leg. 1....2.....and Savage kicks out. My god King, what will it take to put these two down. CHOKESLAM!!!!!! CHOKESLAM!!!!!!!! That has to be it. All the Undertaker has to do is pin him. Oh no, he's signaling for the Tombstone. Oh God King, he's got him up.....TOMBSTONE!!!!!! TOMBSTONE!!!!!!! 1.....2.....3..... 'Taker wins!!!!!!

Vote 'Taker.

I mean, come on.

Like everyone else, I'm a huge fan of Randy Savage but Savage would not get past The Undertaker. I'm not doubting Savage's ability in the ring but there's just nothing I see in Savage's arsenal that can keep Taker down. We've seen Taker endure so much punishment and take so much more devestating moves than Savage can ultimately dish out.

We've seen him beaten by lesser wrestlers than Savage.

In terms of dominance and sheer ability to get the job done time and time again against the biggest of the biggest names, Taker is out of Savage's league. I'm not doubting Savage's abilities and he'd make Taker earn any victory he got. I've seen a few arguments brought up on Savage winning the WWF Championship at WM IV in which he had to go through 4 guys to do it. While impressive, let's be honest, none of the wrestlers he beat were in Taker's league. Pretty much the only legendary figure in wrestling over the past 30 years that Taker hasn't beaten is Sting, as they haven't wrestled in the same promotion since the very early 90s when Taker was Mean Mark Callous in WCW.

He's lost to all of them as well.

Don't let nostalgia get in the way here. Savage was great, we all know it, but we all know that Taker is out of his league. Short of driving a stake through his heart and nailing his arms & legs to mat before hitting the flying elbow, Savage can't keep Taker down.

Where do you start with shit like this?

Had to vote for the Undertaker. His longevity in the business is outstanding and for him to be at the top of his game for so long, is just phenomenal. As someone said earlier, I can't see a Flying Elbow putting Undertaker down. Macho Man would need at least six of them to even think about getting a two count. Eventually I can see Macho Man getting frustrated, going to grab a chair and then get chokeslammed once he returned to the ring and then a Tombstone puts him down.

lol

You would think as we move further along in the tournament it would become more fun to post. I'm finding it to be the opposite because we are at the point where either man could advance so I honestly don't have much of an argument one way or the other. If I was voting for the one I liked better or enjoyed watching more I would vote Savage. However, I think Taker would win a match between the two. When I visualize this match I don't see Savage keeping Taker down for a three count but I could easily see Savage falling victim to a tombstone after a great and hard fought match.

Why though? Undertaker has been beaten plenty, why not by one of the greatest in Savage?

I feel exactly the same as Brain about the tournament now, it is getting harder and harder to make a convincing argument for anyone, as each match could go either way!

There would no argument from me if Savage beat Undertaker in this, but the more I think about it, the more I see The Deadman coming out on top. To pick who to vote for has been a difficult decision, and reading through people's arguments has seen my pick change several times.

However, the only thing that decided it is that I cannot see Savage pinning 'Taker after the elbow drop. HBK has landed a top rope elbow on 'Taker several times and yet never pinned him after it, and I see 'Taker kicking out of a Savage elbow too. Plus, it takes alot of time to climb to the top rope in a match that would take so much out of Savage, and I don't think Undi' would stay down long enough.

A Tombstone is alot easier to set up than Savage's elbow, and I think that seals the deal for me. Undertaker to win.

And this.

Now look at Undertakers voters and tell me most of them didnt just click the thread, think "Undertakers unbeatable hurr, hurr!" And vote for him, the only way you can argue against that shit is to point out that he is in fact, very beatable.

People think he's some kind of legendary performer, so why not point out the fact that he's had a fuckload of stinkers? More bad ones than good ones certainly.

Nobody argued against my or anybody elses Savage points because they know they are all true, every single one, but until people actually see Undertaker for what he is then it's all for nothing.