Miami Region, Sixth Round: (1) The Undertaker vs. (3) John Cena

[Tastycles]

Ohhh Fuck, here we go. Tastycles seems to think this is a "who can make the most ******ed statements at one time" tournament.
CONGRATULATIONS, You're #winning!!!

You calling me a ****** is like the pot calling the igloo black. I don't expect you to get that.

That's right folks, if you have a differing point of view you know absolutely nothing about wrestling, and that's the bottom line because some guy on the internet said so!

If you think Undertaker is better than John Cena by any objective criteria, then you know nothing. If you prefer him, power to you. I'm not really a fan of anyone left in this tournament, but I can tell you that Taker is by far the worst pro wrestler left, and were it not for CM Punk's presence in the last round, he'd have been the worst there by a country mile too.

I'd love to see you validate that statement somehow considering the fact that Undertaker has been a top tier player since the day he arrived. He has always been one of the WWE's biggest stars whether it was the Hogan Era, Next Generation, Attitude Era, Ruthless Aggression Era, PG era, or what have you.

In the Hogan era, he feuded with Hogan for about 3 weeks as a stop gap for Flair's arrival. Then he started feuding with guys like Jake Roberts, the definitive midcarder.

In the new generation era, when they were giving anyone a shot at the main event, he was feuding with Mabel.

In the Attitude era, which I'm defining as the PPV after WrestleMania XIV to WrestleMania X-Seven, he only headlined 2 PPVs that Austin didn't. One was a 6 man tag, the other a fatal-4-way. That is not what the biggest stars do, that is occupying the Chris Jericho slot of believable main eventer, but that's about it.

In the Ruthless aggression era he was wrestling the likes of A-Train, Mark Henry and Muhammed Hassan.

In the early PG era, was his only sustained period of challenge. On the B show. In the second half, you could count the number of matches he's had on one hand.

This is a guy who has stood the test of time and been relevant, holding titles all through the different eras with all the changes of the tides. No matter who "The Guy" was at any given time, The Undertaker either feuded with them, was a major threat to them, or beat them at one point or another.

And then ultimately faded to the background. As a champion, he's been diabolical. When the world and his wife were getting title reigns in the attitude era, Taker managed 1 for 36 days. The Undertaker doesn't always feud with "the guy" anyway. Diesel was champion for a year and Taker was nowhere near him in that time.

Add to that the fact that he's been as big a star as he has for longer than a good number of the members here have even been alive and I see no way, shape, or form in which you can say with any validity or confidence that Cena is a bigger star.

Are you fucking ******ed? There is literally nobody in the world with any knowledge that denies that Cena is the biggest draw in wrestling right now. The Undertaker is still around, but everyone points to Cena. The WrestleMania live audience has basically quadrupled since John Cena started main eventing, the buyrate has gradually increased. When Undertaker comes back after a lengthy period, there is no change in the ratings. When Cena came back around Survivor Series 2008, the ratings leapt up 0.5 points in a week!

Undertaker has won the WWE Title 4 times, the World Heavyweight title 3 times, is that not good enough? He's also held tag titles 7 times and the hardcore title once if you want a total tally. That's still a lot of gold and when you stop and consider that he's never really needed it, that makes it all the more impressive.

Cena has won the WWE title 10 times, the World Heavyweight Championship twice. 12 is more than 7 and he did it in half the time. Oh shit though, I didn't factor in the Hardcore title. How on earth will Cena compete with that? His 2 US titles might just do that.

No one can argue John Cena's success, he has amassed quite a number of title reigns (12), but he's played hot potato with the title a bit, losing it and gaining it back which has made the number of reigns significantly higher. To his credit he has had 3 reigns that lasted for extended periods of time, but he hasn't had a long title reigns since 2007 by comparison which tells me he's seen his best days already.

And the Undertaker hasn't seen his best days already? What are you on about? But his the kicker.

Cena's longest reign was 380 days, Taker's was 140 days.
Cena's average reign is 97 days, Taker's is 64 days.

He's had more reigns, that last longer, and he's the one that hot potatoes it?

Here is some perspective, I think you need it.

With all that in mind I'd say the arguments about titles reigns, length of reigns, etc... is almost futile. Cena has a few more than Undertaker but they have mostly been short reigns, and while Undertaker hasn't held any of the titles for AS LONG as John Cena, he still has almost as many and holds the grandest title of all being undefeated at WrestleMania which trumps pretty much every other accomplishment and title in the history of the business.

What? Lets once and for all show that the Streak is the most overrated accomplishment in the history of the business:

Jimmy Snuka - Shite has been
Jake Roberts - Midcarder
Giant González - Monster of the month, won by DQ after being knocked out
King Kong Bundy - Fat, crap and past his prime
Diesel - On his way out the company
Sycho Sid - On his way out the company
Kane - First Impressive victory
Big Boss Man - Has-been midcarder
Triple H - Second impressive victory
Ric Flair - Aged 50+
Big Show & A-Train - Complete farce, set up by Nathan Douglas' exit
Kane - Kane had totally lost his way by now, feuding with Matt Hardy etc. before long
Randy Orton - Still in the midcard after catastrophic title reign
Mark Henry - Fat Midcarder

The 6 matches since then have been mostly good, but it doesn't disguise the fact that until he went part time, the Streak lasted 14 years, and contained 2 impressive victories.

So you mean to suggest than in Cena's 8 years that he has sold more merchandise and drawn more fans than Undertakers cumulative over the course of over 20 years? I'd say that's quite a stretch and virtually impossible considering that Undertaker has always been quite a draw and merchandise machine himself. This is something that I think time simply doesn't allow.

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. In 2008, Cena sold more t-shirts in one year than anyone in the history of wrestling, except Austin in the late 90s and Hogan in the mid 80s. The Undertaker was never a big merch seller.

Undertaker did the same thing for more years than John Cena's been wrestling period, that's nothing to try and tout as a reason Cena is somehow better. All he is doing is the exact same thing anyone and everyone whose ever been in his position has been expected to do, and I don't mean just champions and top draws, I mean WWE Superstars in general. They are all expected to wrestle week in, week out and they do.

Bret Hart was a war horse in that regard being on the road pretty much constantly for 14 straight years and missing something like 2 days EVER. Cena's still got some road work to do before you can really tout that, and even with a longer run on the road, he's been sidelined numerous times for injury.

Undertaker has had that problem in these later years, but you can't forget from 1990 to say.... 2004-05 he was pretty much injury free and on the road constantly himself. He's been a road warrior for the WWE like few people ever have.

Except he didn't. Cena has had one year - October 2007-8 - in his entire career where he missed significant time, i.e. more than a month. Before Raw debuted, the schedule wasn't the same. After it did, Taker had long breaks in 1994, 1995, 1999-2000, 2002, 2003-4, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Coupled in with the fact that in 1996-99 he had long periods where he only wrestled PPVs, I think that's my point proven.

And the last 4 years at WrestleMania, who has stolen the show? Undertaker vs Triple H and Shawn Michaels. Even though Cena-Rock had top billing at WM28, everyone walked away from that event knowing that Taker-HHH was easily the MOTN just as they did the previous 3 years and arguably the previous 5 years with his matches against Edge and Batista. Those were great matches as well, and Undertaker has stolen the show with both Edge and Batista in their feuds at numerous PPVs.

Slyfox, who's opinions are generally closer to those of the mainstream than anyone's in the IWC, believes the first Triple H match to be god awful. But to steal the show at 4 events out of 20 isn't particularly show stealing. The crowd are always engaged in Cena's matches. That is not true of The Undertaker.

Basically you're talking match quality here and whether it was the original Undertaker whose gimmick and presence was so captivating and awe inspiring, all the way to the modern day Undertaker, he has always delivered great matches in one way or another.

FEEL


THE


GREATNESS.

This has absolutely NO relevance to this match, and if you want to talk about popularity basically; while Undertaker may not have made movies and shitty rap albums, he is one of the most recognized figures in wrestling the world over no matter where you go. He may not be a media sensation, but he is an international star in his own right.

Except he isn't is he? This is about the best wrestler of all time, and that means being well known outside wrestling. Which Taker isn't. And Cena is. Taker does not get invited to the Orange Bowl.

Rrrreeallllyyyy??? So once again, in the over 20 year career of The Undertaker, you are daring to suggest that in only 8 years, John Cena has put more people over? Tell you what, you PROVE IT and I mean do your homework and show me, and I will never argue otherwise again. However, I think the fact of the matter is that you are horribly, horribly wrong on this one. If you'd like I'll go ahead and do the homework and prove you wrong myself, but I think it would be much more entertaining for everyone else to see you have to admit how pathetically wrong you were on that one.

It's cute that you're trying, but despite the fact Little Jerry Lawler has already put you on your arse, I'm going to do it again.

Mankind

Put himself over by throwing himself off the cage.

Vader

What? He wasn't ever over in WWF, and I don't recall Undertaker wrestling in Japan/WCW in the early 90s.

Shawn Michaels

Shawn Michaels was a multiple time world champion before he wrestled The Undertaker.

Kane

I've said it before, Kane's overness had more to do with Paul Bearer, but this is the first one that has any merit.

Stone Cold Steve Austin

If he put Austin over, so did the entire roster in 1998! Or Bret Hart put him over, one of the two.

Kurt Angle

Valid.

The Rock

The Undertaker first got into a programme with The Rock in 1999, after he'd headlined WrestleMania.

RVD

What? How?!

Jeff Hardy

Valid

Brock Lesnar

More of a team effort by the contemporary main event.

Big Show

No, I see where we are going with this. If you lose, you don't necessarily put someone over. It's about making them look better. Taker never did this with show.

Vince Fucking McMahon of all people

Is this a joke?

JBL

Not really, good character.

Randy Orton

Valid, though Orton had a long way to go after this.

Mark Henry (even though he never lost to him, you don't necessarily have to lose to someone to put them over)

But you do have to avoid them looking like a sack of shit.

The Great Khali

Valid

Mr. Kennedy

Losing by DQ then levelling them = not putting over

Edge

Losing by having millions of interference = not putting over

Batista

Multiple time world Champion

CM Punk

When he destroyed him on PPV? That sure helped Punk's career!

Chris Jericho

How exactly?

Triple H

Yeah alright, he beat a 13 time world Champion despite being interfered against, twatted with a sledgehammer and having an unfavourable referee.

It should also be noted that he put quite a few of them over on multiple occasions.

Keep in mind now, Undertaker "putting these people over" doesn't mean he simply loses to them, that would be the most literal form of putting someone over. Putting someone over also means that you help elevate them, thus, getting over. Anyone who feuds with him is elevated as a result just by being in the same ring as him. It shows the audience that the person is legit enough to be in there with him, and it's also a sign of respect that he feels you're legit enough to be in there with him. Jeff Hardy is a good example for that, and even Triple H and Mark Henry. They never beat him, but I think it's safe to say HHH's career has been emboldened from his battles with Undertaker, Jeff Hardy got Takers direct endorsement on national television, and Mark Henry became a legit threat after years of obscurity by feuding with Undertaker and we all saw how far he's come since then. But, don't forget, he's beaten all of them too.

Just losing, is not putting over. You have missed that point. You're correct about Hardy, though the endorsement went nowhere. The majority of the others may have won, but they were no-sold to high heaven.

John Cena may have lost to a number of people but the resume looks nothing like this, and Cena has faced numerous people who weren't elevated by beating him or facing him because they were his peers, like Orton, Batista, Edge, Or they were already such big stars, he was the one getting put over e.g. Kurt Angle, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, JBL, etc....

I love how The Undertaker was putting over Austin and The Rock in 1999, but Cena was a smaller star than JBL, apparently. You could not sum up your obvious bias fanboyism any more succinctly.

At this point that would not only be painful but damaging for you. Please, stop.

The saddest part of this is that you think you're making a good argument. I'm not angry at you, I just pity you.

Please explain how that is? So he's won titles, gimmick matches, and been placed as the poster boy of the company. There have been many before him in the same position and there will be many like him later down the road. Undertaker is one of a kind, there will never be another like him, and while all the guys like Cena have come a went as will he, Taker has been there and watched them all come and go. He might not outlast Cena for obvious reasons, but when he retires for good he will leave behind a pair of boots that can never be filled, not even by John Cena.

He's a sideshow, and Stevie Wonder could see that.

Nope. Not really. Good story though Poncho. Even though Undertaker is by far bigger than Cena, he still does things we still haven't seen Cena do. He's taken bigger bumps, flown higher, delivered bigger slams and splashes, out-wrestled and submitted as many people, and above all else continues to go out there every year at WrestleMania and show the world how it's done.

Cena has done all of those things.

Undertaker is so good, so commanding, with such a power over the audience he doesn't even need to do anything to get them riled up except show up. Look at the last few years with Triple H, a cold stoic stare is all it takes for him to have everyone in the palm of his hand. He can just stand there, and the power of his presence alone makes the building erupt.

The building erupts more when Cena gets there.

Then when you get to his performance in the ring, he is second to absolutely NONE. He's easily the best big man of all time, and arguably the greatest of all time if you're not bullshitting yourself and glorifying someone else you happen to be a bigger fan of. The Undertaker will go down as the greatest character and biggest figure ever in wrestling, possibly next to Hogan, and he beat Hogan.

He beat Hogan because Ric Flair got involved. Don't invent history. If you think The Undertaker is the best in ring performer of all time, power to you, but the overwhelming majority will disagree. I'm not a fan of Cena, you are a fan of The Undertaker, and that is abundantly clear as you repeatedly miss the point, and make irrelevant ones.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Well, I can't even remember the last time mustered up enough inspiration to make an actual wrestling related post; can't say I'm all that inspired either, but I know for a fact I can make a better argument for Taker than what has currently been brought to the table.

I can't be bothered to actually read through much of the hot garbage being tossed around in this thread, so I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but it certainly deserves to be posted again if it hasn't been already.

​

John Cena may be the current uber face of the company, he may have "super" powers, but he's no Undertaker, and that clip above proves it. Taker transcends generations, he blends the line between face/heel, and in recent years he's basically become bigger than the wrestling itself.

I see lots arguments trying to force people to "choose a prime" for taker, but that's a pretty easy trap to avoid. Just because most wrestlers have clearly defined primes, doesn't mean all do; but then again, has there ever been anyone like the Undertaker who has had so much longevity, combined with so much success? The answer is no, simply because Taker is one of a kind, he's been a beast since he first stepped foot into the WWF, and to try and widdle his career down to one prime just isn't fair to The Undertaker. His entire career has been a prime, and nobody, not even John Cena will ever be able to compare careers with the Undertaker. He's a one of a kind anomaly in the wrestling world, a true legend of the sport.

Vote The Undertaker

 

[Shotaro]

Much as I am loathe to say it. Cena's going to win here. There's just no way I can see it ending any other way. The ONLY way Undertaker would win over Cena is if this were Wrestlemania. It isn't. Cena to win.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, I can't even remember the last time mustered up enough inspiration to make an actual wrestling related post; can't say I'm all that inspired either, but I know for a fact I can make a better argument for Taker than what has currently been brought to the table.

I can't be bothered to actually read through much of the hot garbage being tossed around in this thread, so I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but it certainly deserves to be posted again if it hasn't been already.

​

John Cena may be the current uber face of the company, he may have "super" powers, but he's no Undertaker, and that clip above proves it. Taker transcends generations, he blends the line between face/heel, and in recent years he's basically become bigger than the wrestling itself.

Your proof is that after Cena's tag team wins a three-way tag team match against DX and JeriShow, Undertaker turns on his tag team partner and surprise attacks Cena with a Tombstone? Really?

What a terrible argument, and all it does is show how scared of John Cena the Undertaker really is. Undertaker, as Gorilla Monsoon would say, Pearl Harbor'd John Cena after the two had been together in a tag team, likely because he was jealous of the fact Cena was the one who had won the match for them.

What a pitiful argument. You should be ashamed. I thought you said you were going to make a quality argument for Undertaker. Sneak attacking your tag team partner after he won the match for you is not a quality argument.

I see lots arguments trying to force people to "choose a prime" for taker, but that's a pretty easy trap to avoid. Just because most wrestlers have clearly defined primes, doesn't mean all do; but then again, has there ever been anyone like the Undertaker who has had so much longevity, combined with so much success?

But as Tasty has pointed out, Undertaker never really saw much success until late in his career.

So you have to decide, do you want the success or do you want physical prime? You have to choose, you don't get to have both. In his physical prime, he rarely main-evented or won championships, and in his championship prime, he was a shell of himself physically.

So you just let us know which you want to choose, and we'll go from there. And, once again, shame on you for trying to pass that video clip off as relevant.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Much as I am loathe to say it. Cena's going to win here. There's just no way I can see it ending any other way. The ONLY way Undertaker would win over Cena is if this were Wrestlemania. It isn't. Cena to win.

This tournament is a once a year contest, very similar in that sense to WM, and we all know how Taker preforms in those type of high profile situations. While it may not be WM, it's also not your run of the mill episode of RAW.

Taker is more than just WM, and only in the last 3 years or so has he become the WM taker that everyone likes to refer to. To say Cena is going to win just because this isn't WM is a cop out argument. Taker has plenty of high profile victories that didn't take place at WM. Just look at the video I posted above from a couple years back. Cena & Taker as tag team partner (both as current champions, Cena = WWE, Taker = WHC) Taker, as the lesser champ on the lesser brand tombstones Cena. This takes place almost 6 months before WM. Taker doesn't need WM to drop Cena on his head, and he doesn't need WM to be successful; that's simply a myth put out by Cena fans to try and sway the vote.

Taker at least has a chance to take out The Rock next round, why feed Cena to The Rock again, we just saw that outcome not three months ago.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Your proof is that after Cena's tag team wins a three-way tag team match against DX and JeriShow, Undertaker turns on his tag team partner and surprise attacks Cena with a Tombstone? Really?

That's a nice spin, but not my point. My point it that Cena and Taker are both champions at the time, and they could have just as easily had Cena hit Taker with an AA. With such limited encounters between them, I believe there is some significance to that Tombstone.

I didn't search that hard, but I can't even find any visual evidence that Cena has ever hit his finisher on Taker, not to say he's not capable, obviously he is; but the fact that I can't find proof it's ever happened plays a bit into Taker favor.

What a terrible argument, and all it does is show how scared of John Cena the Undertaker really is. Undertaker, as Gorilla Monsoon would say, Pearl Harbor'd John Cena after the two had been together in a tag team, likely because he was jealous of the fact Cena was the one who had won the match for them.

Hmm, I don't know if I've ever heard someone call The Undertaker scared before. That's like saying Cena was scared to fight Batista, so he brought out the duct tape. I think we can leave "fear" out of this discussion.

What a pitiful argument. You should be ashamed. I thought you said you were going to make a quality argument for Undertaker. Sneak attacking your tag team partner after he won the match for you is not a quality argument.

Proof that Taker is the more cunning of the two competitors, proof that taker will do whatever it takes to win. Where Cena is content with the victory, Taker looks at the victory as an opportunity to make a point

But as Tasty has pointed out, Undertaker never really saw much success, until late in his career.

If you equate success simply to title victories, then I guess you could attempt such an argument, but Taker doesn't need the title to be successful, as he's proven time, and time, and time again. Taker has success and victories over guys Cena was watching as a kid. To dismiss takers longevity, and the success he's had since the day he debuted just isn't fair to the Undertaker.

So you have to decide, do you want the success or do you want physical prime? You have to choose, you don't get to have both. In his physical prime, he rarely main-evented or won championships, and in his championship prime, he was a shell of himself physically.

I want it all Sly, I want it all. I want it all because Taker is a different kind of animal. I understand that you want a clearly defined year for taker, but there's a reason why nobody can clearly come up with one, and that's because his entire career has been his prime. He's never really fallen out of it. Sure his physical abilities have diminished a bit in recent years, but the legend still grows; physical abilities or not. I don't think physical abilities make a difference when talking about the Undertaker, as his lack of physical abilities in recent years haven't hindered his success in the slightest.

So you just let us know which you want to choose, and we'll go from there. And, once again, shame on you for trying to pass that video clip off as relevant.

Haha, that clip is just the way this match would end, Tombstone to Cena, and 1-2-3. Taker from 98' or Taker from 08', it really doesn't matter, Taker isn't losing to Cena on a stage this big.

 

[Nate DaMac]

If you equate success simply to title victories, then I guess you could attempt such an argument, but Taker doesn't need the title to be successful, as he's proven time, and time, and time again.

Not disputing this at all, just going to say that Cena doesn't need the title either. In fact, Cena has main evented every PPV since Survivor Series but one and he didn't hold the title nor was a challenger for a title at any of them.

They're both above the title.

Oh, and Cena is better than The Undertaker in every conceivable way.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'll gladly accept the older, more run down, more successful version of The Undertaker as the greatest threat; as his true prime. How you're booked is more meaningful in terms of your professional wrestling prime than how much of a physical specimen you are, hence why most top professional wrestlers are notably older than athletes in 'other sports'. Oldertaker, as we affectionately call him, has held more championships, won more matches, has a larger arsenal, and is lauded for having had more terrific matches than his younger self. Youngertaker. That record's more impressive to me than a time when his pecs weren't so droopy, or when he didn't like to leave the radio on for company. Is that something that old people do or is that something people do for dogs?

Unfortunately, when you compare this - or any - Undertaker to John Cena, he does not compare favourably. Cena's held more championships, won more matches, used his ingenuity and smarts when brawn wasn't enough to get the job done, had better matches (for my money), and has been more durable and resilient. Yes, more durable and resilient than a man whose signature move is sitting up after taking a colossal beating. That's saying something. Cena excels in every area. The only area that Undertaker has the edge in is longevity - but brighter stars burn half as long and all that.

Despite their reputations, neither man is invulnerable. However, put these two in a ring, Cena goes over. Unless it's at WrestleMania. But it isn't. So that's handy.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

There's only one guy that still performs for the WWE and has a higher overall rating on the WWE video games than John Cena, and that is the Undertaker.

Vote Taker.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's a nice spin

That's not spin, that's completely fact. That's EXACTLY what happened. Cena wins the match with Taker as his tag team partner, and Undertaker stabs him in the back.

My point it that Cena and Taker are both champions at the time, and they could have just as easily had Cena hit Taker with an AA. With such limited encounters between them, I believe there is some significance to that Tombstone.

Who is "they"? I'm talking about this match, not about a booking decision in which Taker stabbed someone in the back out of jealousy. Probably because Taker knows Cena is better than him.

I didn't search that hard, but I can't even find any visual evidence that Cena has ever hit his finisher on Taker

You're welcome. And yes, I know Undertaker wins that match, but since it was before Cena's prime, the result is irrelevant. But the proof shows Cena has given the FU/AA to Undertaker.

Hmm, I don't know if I've ever heard someone call The Undertaker scared before.

How many times has Undertaker sneak attacked his own partner after a match? Any time a heel sneak attacks a face, it's considered cowardly, how is this any different?

That's like saying Cena was scared to fight Batista, so he brought out the duct tape. I think we can leave "fear" out of this discussion.

Cena stood toe to toe with Batista like a man. Undertaker sneak attacked his own tag team partner.

Where Cena is content with the victory, Taker looks at the...opportunity to make a point

Fine, we'll do it your way.

Cena wins the match, but Undertaker can Tombstone him after the match to make a point. Whatever that point may be.

Cena wins. Even SSC agrees.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

That's not spin, that's completely fact. That's EXACTLY what happened. Cena wins the match with Taker as his tag team partner, and Undertaker stabs him in the back.

To say that he stabbed him in the back would sort of suggest that Cena was friends with Taker. He just got put in a match on the same side with the guy outside of his control and dropped him after the match, after they had finished being tag partners. For all we know, kayfabe he could hate Cena and just do it for the buzz. What that was, was Taker proving once again that he can do what the fuck he likes and there's not going to be any repercussions.

I mean, what did Cena do to tag him back for that. I'm sure you'll protest that Cena is just a "nice guy" and could've but didn't wanna. In reality, he got dropped by the deadman and never did anything about it. He's never had an issue getting back guys who've wrong him before, Batista in that I Quit match, Barrett with twenty-odd chairs, Orton.... many times. On the face of it, looks like Cena is just scared.

Who is "they"? I'm talking about this match, not about a booking decision in which Taker stabbed someone in the back out of jealousy. Probably because Taker knows Cena is better than him.

Once against, that stabbed in the back thing is pretty tacky... weak even. Probably.... probably.... what probably happened is that Taker knew he could do it and get away with it, and even more significantly that people would still cheer him regardless. He then went on to win his match at the coming PPV, except 8 minutes faster than cena managed to. I don't think Undertaker is a guy you want to label with the idea of... jealousy? Batista yeah, that made sense. Both guys had been the top faces but Cena was always booked to be THE GUY.

Taker's achieved everything he's ever set out to accomplish in the ring. It's not adequate to make a point of Taker's lack of title reigns in comparison. Any time he's been in the title hunt, he's won that belt. It's just most of the time it's his actual opponent that interests him, and if that person happens to have the title, all the better. And recently Undertaker is resigned to the idea of having a match only once a year, he's allowed as a character to call that shot. Cena isn't. You know in kayfabe there'd be repercussions if Cena took it upon himself to say "screw you guys, I'll see you next April".

The Undertaker's never been booked to look weaker than any of his opponents, and of course this wouldn't be any different. Cena's always been made to look weaker than Brock Lesnar as one example, pre-prime but also recently. The only way management could make Lesnar, who would demolish both The Rock and Hulk Hogan amongst others perfectly clean, look more likely to beat Taker in their one match which didn't go to a draw, is to have Lesnar break Taker's hand in advance. That's the closest Taker has come to being booked under someone as a threat, and it's not at all convincing.

You're welcome. And yes, I know Undertaker wins that match, but since it was before Cena's prime, the result is irrelevant. But the proof shows Cena has given the FU/AA to Undertaker.

Fair enough. But as a thinking point, who's to say it was in Taker's prime either? At that point, physically outside of kayfabe The Undertaker is a lot slower and a lot more beat up than the relatively young John Cena is. What he had over Cena in that match was experience, that's it. My point is, with both guys arguably out of prime, the win holds a bit more merit. Although, I will concede, Taker's prime (which is proving a major talking point here) isn't easy to tie down and making a case that Taker is out of prime here is also debatable.

How many times has Undertaker sneak attacked his own partner after a match? Any time a heel sneak attacks a face, it's considered cowardly, how is this any different?

Because Taker can do that as a face. In fact, he can do it to the face of the company and still be a face. You know you have to be a pretty special guy to get that sort of sway from the audience. The only other guy I can remember getting away with something like that was when Hogan took on The Rock.

The reason is isn't 'cowardly' is because Cena's not his opponent, and he's not being weakened before some upcoming clash. Cena's just some guy he got lumped with. Both men went through the entire match and were fatigued and Taker just wanted to make a statement to his opponents. His statement is that he can do what he wants, when he wants and to anyone. He successfully proved that point.

Cena stood toe to toe with Batista like a man. Undertaker sneak attacked his own tag team partner.

Before sneakily tying his legs together his tape, and getting giddy as a schoolgirl when it was next brought up that he'd made a farce of a PPV championship match. It didn't prove that Cena is a coward. It proved that Cena didn't take his position seriously enough to have a clean one-on-one battle with his opponent. That, or he wasn't confident enough that he'd retain in a clean match, so he had to resort to precautionary backhanded methods.

Taker didn't benefit anything by doing what he did, he just did it to show that he could and get away with it.

Fine, we'll do it your way.

Cena wins the match, but Undertaker can Tombstone him after the match to make a point. Whatever that point may be.

Cena wins. Even SSC agrees.

That. Or...

Cole: My God King, what is The Undertaker doing here? John Cena has already tapped out to The Hells Gate, this match is over. And by the looks of things now he's passed out.

King: I don't know Cole. I think we need to get somebody to stop this. Cena's gonna have lasting damage is he doesn't let go. But who's gonna be brave enough to try to get the Deadman off of him?

Cole: Oh my God, this isn't good King. Looks like he's.... my God King, he's grabbing a chair.

King: Deadman has some evil intentions here. What is this all about. We had a good clean match and things have just turned for the worse after the bell here Cole.

Cole: My GOD King. Can you hear those chairs shots echo through the arena? He's hit Cena with at least a dozen shots to the back. This attack is just heinous. And here comes the referees. That's it King. Come on, this is serious now, can... can we get some help out here, Cena is not in a good condition right here.

King: Well, I am stunned. I'm speechless. I've never seen an attack as brutal at this in all my time as an announcer. I can't imagine Cena's going to be in a fit condition to compete again for a long time, if at all. This is really.. not good.

Cole: Well. We can only speculate only the reasons for this spectacle we've just witnessed. Taker's really gone out of his way here to prove some sort of point to everybody watching.

King: And after all that, the people are still cheering for him! It's crazy!

Taker's crazy.

 

[The Crock]

The Undertaker is an attraction -- a sideshow -- whereas John Cena is THE MAN. I have no doubt in my mind that Cena would walk out of this match victorious. Undertaker is very well the most overrated wrestler in this tournament, and that's no joke. I'll give 'Taker points for longevity, but he hasn't exactly ever reached the heights that John Cena has. When was Undertaker EVER the top guy? ...anybody? That's the thing, he really never was. There was always a stable of superstars above him, guys like Austin, Angle, Triple H, Rock, Cena, Lesnar, etc. Undertaker is certainly a main eventer, but WWE never had the faith to build a brand around him -- he's not in the select group that John Cena is in. Don't get me wrong, Undertaker's got accolades -- his WrestleMania streak chief among them -- but he was never built around, he was never going to be in that top tier of wrestling legends.

'Taker's evolution is commendable, but if we're going to be looking at him throughout his career (without a discernible "prime"), then we'll have to look at it objectively. Early on, he wasn't great in the ring, but relied on physicality to get by; Cena's not exactly a pushover in that department. Later on, he became a shell of himself physically and adopted a more savvy in-ring style; Cena's faced some of the savviest, most intelligent competitors around, and come out on top. I haven't even yet touched on Biker 'Taker, where he got complacent and became absolute trash -- you know, where he crapped out matches and went through the motions on a nightly basis? Look, many people hate Cena, but he never goes through the motions, he goes one hundred percent every night. I can't see him losing here.

However you shake it, Cena's more impressive. He may not have a WrestleMania streak to speak of, but he's beaten some serious competition at the big dance, all the while wrestling a full schedule -- not just one match a year. Not to mention that Cena is one of the most decorated WWE superstars of all-time and may someday snap Ric Flair's record streak of 16 World Heavyweight Championships. If you don't want to focus on that, then how about mic work? Cena all the way. How about who's the better draw? I'd take Cena here too. Simply put, Cena's "the franchise" for a reason. The man is an absolute work horse, he's THE main event, he's durable, and he's flat out better than Undertaker.

Trump up the Undertaker all you want, folks... he's still nowhere near the wrestler John Cena is. If this was at WrestleMania, it would be a contest -- but it's not. Outside of WrestleMania, Undertaker would become just another casualty in Cena's long line of wins, just like Lesnar, HHH, Michaels, Batista, Edge, Orton, Mysterio, and more.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Why is it the only measuring stick? Because it helps further your argument that the Undertaker beat Cena, with the use of a shot to the head with Cena's chain, while the ref was down? Kayfabe wise my balls. You just want to use a bullshit argument before Cena was in his prime.

How is the argument bullshit? Because you simply don't agree with it? I was just trying to point out with this argument that, in the past, 'Taker has beaten the hell out of Cena and it wasn't even Deadman 'Taker that did it. We can all agree that kayfabe wise, Deadman 'Taker is a lot harder to beat than ABA/Biker 'Taker.

So 'Taker has beat the same guys that Cena has. Woo hoo. I've got a new one for you. 'Taker likes to bring in some MMA and submission work to his matches. John Cena fucking beat Brock Lesnar, a former UFC Heavyweight Champion, in the ring, 1-2-3. Yeah, from a kayfabe point of view, I think this match would go to John Cena.

So John Cena beat Brock Lesnar. A guy that hasn't wrestled in the WWE since 'Mania of '04. Coincidentally, Cena also lost at WM 28 to a guy that hadn't had a one-on-one match since 'Mania of '04. A guy that 'Taker has beaten in the past.

What makes you say this? 2 votes is too close to say anything of the sort. Savage was likely to take more out of an opponent than Hogan. Of course you could talk about taking punishment which would wear out his opponent before he Hulked up. But still, what makes you think that Hogan would wear Cena out more than Savage would on 'Taker?

I wasn't going by the votes. I'm simply suggesting that prime Hogan would be a tougher opponent than prime Savage. Do you disagree? Even if you do disagree, 'Taker has beaten prime Hogan before. Just another name on that long list of greats that 'Taker has beaten over the past 20+ years.

Don't.

I'd also appreciate somebody on 'Taker's side to give me a prime. Using his whole career is bullshit, and in fact probably takes away.

I think that it's already been said by someone, but I'll say it again. Does 'Taker really have a prime? He's proven to be relevant and successful throughout the entirety of his career. What other wrestler in any organization can say that?

 

[Slyfox696]

To say that he stabbed him in the back would sort of suggest that Cena was friends with Taker. He just got put in a match on the same side with the guy outside of his control and dropped him after the match, after they had finished being tag partners. For all we know, kayfabe he could hate Cena and just do it for the buzz. What that was, was Taker proving once again that he can do what the fuck he likes and there's not going to be any repercussions.

I mean, what did Cena do to tag him back for that. I'm sure you'll protest that Cena is just a "nice guy" and could've but didn't wanna. In reality, he got dropped by the deadman and never did anything about it. He's never had an issue getting back guys who've wrong him before, Batista in that I Quit match, Barrett with twenty-odd chairs, Orton.... many times. On the face of it, looks like Cena is just scared.



Once against, that stabbed in the back thing is pretty tacky... weak even. Probably.... probably.... what probably happened is that Taker knew he could do it and get away with it, and even more significantly that people would still cheer him regardless. He then went on to win his match at the coming PPV, except 8 minutes faster than cena managed to. I don't think Undertaker is a guy you want to label with the idea of... jealousy? Batista yeah, that made sense. Both guys had been the top faces but Cena was always booked to be THE GUY.

Taker's achieved everything he's ever set out to accomplish in the ring. It's not adequate to make a point of Taker's lack of title reigns in comparison. Any time he's been in the title hunt, he's won that belt. It's just most of the time it's his actual opponent that interests him, and if that person happens to have the title, all the better. And recently Undertaker is resigned to the idea of having a match only once a year, he's allowed as a character to call that shot. Cena isn't. You know in kayfabe there'd be repercussions if Cena took it upon himself to say "screw you guys, I'll see you next April".

The Undertaker's never been booked to look weaker than any of his opponents, and of course this wouldn't be any different. Cena's always been made to look weaker than Brock Lesnar as one example, pre-prime but also recently. The only way management could make Lesnar, who would demolish both The Rock and Hulk Hogan amongst others perfectly clean, look more likely to beat Taker in their one match which didn't go to a draw, is to have Lesnar break Taker's hand in advance. That's the closest Taker has come to being booked under someone as a threat, and it's not at all convincing.



Fair enough. But as a thinking point, who's to say it was in Taker's prime either? At that point, physically outside of kayfabe The Undertaker is a lot slower and a lot more beat up than the relatively young John Cena is. What he had over Cena in that match was experience, that's it. My point is, with both guys arguably out of prime, the win holds a bit more merit. Although, I will concede, Taker's prime (which is proving a major talking point here) isn't easy to tie down and making a case that Taker is out of prime here is also debatable.



Because Taker can do that as a face. In fact, he can do it to the face of the company and still be a face. You know you have to be a pretty special guy to get that sort of sway from the audience. The only other guy I can remember getting away with something like that was when Hogan took on The Rock.

The reason is isn't 'cowardly' is because Cena's not his opponent, and he's not being weakened before some upcoming clash. Cena's just some guy he got lumped with. Both men went through the entire match and were fatigued and Taker just wanted to make a statement to his opponents. His statement is that he can do what he wants, when he wants and to anyone. He successfully proved that point.



Before sneakily tying his legs together his tape, and getting giddy as a schoolgirl when it was next brought up that he'd made a farce of a PPV championship match. It didn't prove that Cena is a coward. It proved that Cena didn't take his position seriously enough to have a clean one-on-one battle with his opponent. That, or he wasn't confident enough that he'd retain in a clean match, so he had to resort to precautionary backhanded methods.

Taker didn't benefit anything by doing what he did, he just did it to show that he could and get away with it.



That. Or...

Cole: My God King, what is The Undertaker doing here? John Cena has already tapped out to The Hells Gate, this match is over. And by the looks of things now he's passed out.

King: I don't know Cole. I think we need to get somebody to stop this. Cena's gonna have lasting damage is he doesn't let go. But who's gonna be brave enough to try to get the Deadman off of him?

Cole: Oh my God, this isn't good King. Looks like he's.... my God King, he's grabbing a chair.

King: Deadman has some evil intentions here. What is this all about. We had a good clean match and things have just turned for the worse after the bell here Cole.

Cole: My GOD King. Can you hear those chairs shots echo through the arena? He's hit Cena with at least a dozen shots to the back. This attack is just heinous. And here comes the referees. That's it King. Come on, this is serious now, can... can we get some help out here, Cena is not in a good condition right here.

King: Well, I am stunned. I'm speechless. I've never seen an attack as brutal at this in all my time as an announcer. I can't imagine Cena's going to be in a fit condition to compete again for a long time, if at all. This is really.. not good.

Cole: Well. We can only speculate only the reasons for this spectacle we've just witnessed. Taker's really gone out of his way here to prove some sort of point to everybody watching.

King: And after all that, the people are still cheering for him! It's crazy!

Taker's crazy.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Does 'Taker really have a prime?

Yes, everyone has a prime. It's absurd to say he doesn't. Only shitty wrestlers don't have a prime, so unless you're trying to say Undertaker is shitty, he has a prime.

What's the point of pro wrestling? It's to win championships, right? It's to be considered the top guy, right? Undertaker was never that until the last five years. Undertaker was ALWAYS behind someone else, whether that someone else was Hogan, Hart, Michaels, Austin, Rock, Triple H, or even Cena. It wasn't until Taker started working Smackdown with Cena on Raw that Undertaker began winning titles, which recognized him as the best of the brand. Technically, that SHOULD be recognized as his prime.

But some people like to look at an athlete's physical prime, when they were most physically capable in their sport, as their prime. In that case, we look back to the Undertaker during his run where he didn't win titles, and we was playing second fiddle to all sorts of people.

I don't care which era of Undertaker's career you choose, but you can't cop out and say both eras were his prime. Because that's just a load of crap.

 

[Skillz]

Just as I expected, this is boiling down to intelligent people vs. unintelligent people. The only reason why anyone would vote for Taker over Cena is because they like him more. Using any objective criteria, Cena should undeniably beat Taker in this match. Here are some indisputable facts to look at:

• Cena has been the face of WWE for over 7 years, and there are no signs of anyone replacing him anytime soon.
  Taker has NEVER been the face of WWE.
  
• Cena has been a world champion for 1163 days.
  Taker has been a world champion for 445 days.
  
• Cena has main evented 4 WM's (8 if you include world title matches that didn't close the show).
  Taker has main evented 3 WM's (4 if you include world title matches that didn't close the show).

And Cena has done all of this in half of the career. Cena is by far the better professional wrestler. He is a much bigger draw, he has more mainstream appeal, he is a better champion and he is a better worker. Cena has been the man for over 7 years. Taker has never been the man and has always been behind the likes of Hogan, Hart, HBK, Austin, Rock, HHH, Lesnar and Cena.

The streak is the backbone of Taker's legacy, it's what everyone points to when arguing the greatness of Taker, and it is also the most overrated "accomplishment" in the history of professional wrestling. Taker fanboys go on about the streak as if Taker has beat every legend the WWE has seen at WM in the last 20 years. But all you have to do is use some common sense, actually look at the streak, and it's not hard to come to the conclusion that the streak, for the most part, is a pile of shit.

To prove how overrated the streak is, just take a look at the names who Taker has NOT faced at Mania, and it starts to become clear that the streak is not as legitimate as WWE wants everyone to believe; Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Hart, Austin, Rock, Lesnar, Cena. All of these guys have been around while Taker has been around, most of them have been the ones to carry the company, and yet Taker has NEVER faced any of them at Mania. If Taker's streak was truly as great as WWE says it is, then some, if not all, of these names should be on it. The only names that are on the streak that do compare to those names are HHH and HBK. Batista, Edge, Kane (1998), Diesel and Sid are below those names but were beaten in their primes so let's be generous and include them. That's a maximum of 7 opponents in 20 Mania's that were impressive victories for Taker. Flair was way past his prime, Orton was before his prime, and the rest (which makes up half of the streak) are not even worth talking about. I think it's telling that none of the truly biggest names in WWE history (namely Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena) have ever faced Taker at Mania, because it's not hard to imagine that they would have beat Taker at Mania.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the reason why it's so hard to think of Taker's prime is because he has been so fucking inconsistent over the years? He has been terrible at so many stages of his career. If you look at any point in his career, you will find that he was either; having terrible matches, having terrible feuds, working in the midcard, having unmemorable (usually short) reigns as champion, or wrestling once a year.

If you have a brain, vote for Cena.

 

[CH David]

How is the argument bullshit? Because you simply don't agree with it? I was just trying to point out with this argument that, in the past, 'Taker has beaten the hell out of Cena and it wasn't even Deadman 'Taker that did it. We can all agree that kayfabe wise, Deadman 'Taker is a lot harder to beat than ABA/Biker 'Taker.

No it's bullshit because it wasn't a prime Cena that 'Taker did that too. If it was I'd give you a nod, but it isn't.

So John Cena beat Brock Lesnar. A guy that hasn't wrestled in the WWE since 'Mania of '04.

Yeah he was a little busy being at the top of the UFC. Ya know, that mixed martial arts sport that has people watch to see guys beat the shit out of each other, without the theatrics during the actual fights. Nice on trying to diminish that. Sadly you didn't, nor could you.

Coincidentally, Cena also lost at WM 28 to a guy that hadn't had a one-on-one match since 'Mania of '04. A guy that 'Taker has beaten in the past.

Also a guy that 'Taker has lost to more often than not. I don't see your point.

I wasn't going by the votes. I'm simply suggesting that prime Hogan would be a tougher opponent than prime Savage. Do you disagree? Even if you do disagree, 'Taker has beaten prime Hogan before. Just another name on that long list of greats that 'Taker has beaten over the past 20+ years.

Maybe you should expand upon that suggestion and say why Hogan is a tougher opponent. Hogan got some offense in, took his opponent's offense for a while, then Hulked up and won. That is how most Hogan matches went. Savage would work a guy over a lot more, and likely inflicting more damage than what Hogan would do. Unless we go with the nerve pinch, oh that devastating nerve hold!!

We won't even worry about the interference that it took for 'Taker to beat Hogan, then? Oh and Hogan beat 'Taker just six days later to regain his title. That's such a great example!

I think that it's already been said by someone, but I'll say it again. Does 'Taker really have a prime? He's proven to be relevant and successful throughout the entirety of his career. What other wrestler in any organization can say that?

This is just more bullshit. He was not that good from '90-'96. He is all flare and little substance at this point. He got a little more substance from '97-99, but not much. '00-'03 was better for him, though '04-'10 was probably his best time though. Maybe '05 when Cena left SmackDown though. But he still just isn't as good as Cena. It really doesn't matter. Cena is better than Undertaker. I know you love the Undertaker, but he just isn't as good as Cena. I can sense a retort from you saying "No, he's better." which would just be another fallacy.

 

[shattered dreams]

Just as I expected, this is boiling down to intelligent people vs. unintelligent people. The only reason why anyone would vote for Taker over Cena is because they like him more. Using any objective criteria, Cena should undeniably beat Taker in this match. Here are some indisputable facts to look at:

What exactly is objective criteria for greatest? Longevity plays into almost any conversation on greatness. It is rare that people proclaim someone to be the greatest while they are still in their prime as the entire career is a huge factor. It is also interesting to compare "statistics" across eras. Level of competition is also an important factor and that is being completely overlooked here by the "look what Cena did in half his career" crowd. What really is more impressive: being the best in a downtime for wrestling or being really good across some of the most successful times in wrestling's history? The answer to that question seems to require a subjective assessment.

• Cena has been the face of WWE for over 7 years, and there are no signs of anyone replacing him anytime soon.
  Taker has NEVER been the face of WWE.

• 
  
  So in that 7 years the impossibly "dominant" Cena has won how many WM main event matches? The answer is 2, just like the Undertaker. Not sure I'd buy into 7 anyway. Maybe 6.
  
  

  [*]Cena has been a world champion for 1163 days.
  Taker has been a world champion for 445 days.

  
  Cool story. Now start him off in the era that the Undertaker did and tell me why he would have near as much time with the belt?
  
  

  [*]Cena has main evented 4 WM's (8 if you include world title matches that didn't close the show).
  Taker has main evented 3 WM's (4 if you include world title matches that didn't close the show).

Isn't this about winning though? Taker is 3-0 in WM main events, defeating Edge (frequently referenced as Cena's greatest opponent which should be telling in several ways), HBK and Psycho Sid (not a bad comp for if Batista was around back then). Cena is 2-2, losing to Miz and the Rock. So people talk about the level of competition that Taker faced at Wrestlemania, but not only did Cena face someone on a lower level like the Miz, but he lost to them. Even if it isn't all about winning Wrestlemania has long been by far the biggest drawing thing WWE does.

Cena is by far the better professional wrestler. He is a much bigger draw, he has more mainstream appeal, he is a better champion and he is a better worker. Cena has been the man for over 7 years.

The objectivity in this part is blinding.

And Cena has done all of this in half of the career. Taker has never been the man and has always been behind the likes of Hogan, Hart, HBK, Austin, Rock, HHH, Lesnar and Cena.

So Taker was "always" behind people that Cena has never beat and thus Taker is worse Seems like some convenient criteria. Cena never beat Austin, Hart, Hogan, Rock. Undertaker did. In your years that Cena has been "the man" Brock wasn't in the company up until their most recent match where Brock basically destroyed him but did lose. When Brock was heating up the first time he faced Taker, Lesnar failed to defeat him. The idea that Taker has always been behind HBK is laughable. He defeated HBK two straight wrestlemanias, the second of which retired HBK. He just basically did the same thing to HHH, except it was 3 times he defeated him on the biggest show of the year. All the "best" of "Cena's era" Undertaker has defeated as well. I just don't see why if Cena started when Taker did or vice versa that most of these "numbers" would not be a lot closer.

The streak is the backbone of Taker's legacy, it's what everyone points to when arguing the greatness of Taker, and it is also the most overrated "accomplishment" in the history of professional wrestling. Taker fanboys go on about the streak as if Taker has beat every legend the WWE has seen at WM in the last 20 years. But all you have to do is use some common sense, actually look at the streak, and it's not hard to come to the conclusion that the streak, for the most part, is a pile of shit.

The only thing more dumb than saying that Taker beat legend after legend at WM is to say that the streak is shit.

To prove how overrated the streak is, just take a look at the names who Taker has NOT faced at Mania, and it starts to become clear that the streak is not as legitimate as WWE wants everyone to believe; Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Hart, Austin, Rock, Lesnar, Cena.

Doesn't this just prove how overrated Cena is since he pretty much never faced these guys period anywhere up until this year where he lost at WM and then barely won on a secondary show? Now Undertaker has defeated Orton, Batista and Edge at WM, which is pretty much Cena's era, he also dominated HHH and HBK at WM, which are the only two people Cena has beat in a main event at WM. The streak is still impressive because of the time in spans. There are not many people that have participated in even 10 WMs and no has even been in 20 except for Undertaker.

All of these guys have been around while Taker has been around, most of them have been the ones to carry the company, and yet Taker has NEVER faced any of them at Mania. If Taker's streak was truly as great as WWE says it is, then some, if not all, of these names should be on it. The only names that are on the streak that do compare to those names are HHH and HBK. Batista, Edge, Kane (1998), Diesel and Sid are below those names but were beaten in their primes so let's be generous and include them. That's a maximum of 7 opponents in 20 Mania's that were impressive victories for Taker.

Wasn't I just supposed to be impressed by the number 7 for something involving Cena?

Flair was way past his prime, Orton was before his prime, and the rest (which makes up half of the streak) are not even worth talking about. I think it's telling that none of the truly biggest names in WWE history (namely Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena) have ever faced Taker at Mania, because it's not hard to imagine that they would have beat Taker at Mania.

They certainly could have. They also could have beat Cena easily anywhere, even WM as one of them proved. This is not a valid reason to argue that Cena is better than Taker. The streak is what it is but just because he didn't always face top quality opponents doesn't make it shit, unimpressive or suggest he is inferior to Cena.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the reason why it's so hard to think of Taker's prime is because he has been so fucking inconsistent over the years? He has been terrible at so many stages of his career. If you look at any point in his career, you will find that he was either; having terrible matches, having terrible feuds, working in the midcard, having unmemorable (usually short) reigns as champion, or wrestling once a year.

Yeah, I don't think you want to get into the "terrible matches" discussion. It isn't likely to play out well for you.

If you have a brain, vote for Cena.

I thought you said you were voting for Cena?

 

[shattered dreams]

All of these guys have been around while Taker has been around, most of them have been the ones to carry the company, and yet Taker has NEVER faced any of them at Mania. If Taker's streak was truly as great as WWE says it is, then some, if not all, of these names should be on it. The only names that are on the streak that do compare to those names are HHH and HBK. Batista, Edge, Kane (1998), Diesel and Sid are below those names but were beaten in their primes so let's be generous and include them. That's a maximum of 7 opponents in 20 Mania's that were impressive victories for Taker.

One addendum on this "point." Cena has 6 victories of any kind at WM. In fact there are only two wrestlers I see with more than 7 victories of any kind at WM, Hogan and Hart with a whopping one more. Hence, it would appear 7 impressive victories at WM is actually quite impressive. If you give him credit for one more out of the 13 other options it is actually as impressive as anyone else could ever have possibly been. Even if you won't, am I really supposed to believe that if Undertaker had instead faced 13 "impressive" opponents he would not have won at least twice? Taker is the most impressive winner in the history of the event, no matter how you want to look at it.

 

[Larry]

I'm so glad you said that statement.



You'll be eating yours soon.

You Wish

You're one of many that have said that Foley owes a lot to Taker or put him over. Undertaker was slow and boring as shit before Mankind appeared.

OH MY GOD, yep I'm really eating my words now after you brought forth such compelling evidence to your case. It's expected that you would say this considering the circumstances and your motive. The problem is, that's just your opinion, and one that you didn't even back up with anything which is pretty weak as well, so I don't see how you actually thought when you hit the little submit button that you had actually made any kind of relevant argument. I already covered this indirectly in my first post which I will show you.

ME: whether it was the original Undertaker whose gimmick and presence was so captivating and awe inspiring, all the way to the modern day Undertaker, he has always delivered great matches in one way or another.

What the fuck kind of logic is that you are trying to front here? Until Mankind came around, suddenly then Undertaker was better in the ring? Fuck no dude. First of all, his character was supposed to be slow and zombie like in the beginning, but as I noted the gimmick and his presence alone made for very captivating matches. The original Undertaker was seemingly unstoppable and impervious to pain or any kind of offense his opponent could bring at him, it was insane, and to make it even more compelling he was so dominant it was really something to behold when he did what he did. When he came back in the purple and black, THAT'S when he started speeding up in the ring, as his character had went through a development and was no longer the exact same one that he had portrayed before. This was an evolution of that character and his performance in the ring reflected that. I'm sorry if you weren't around to see it or were to dumb and responded with too much haste to have that realization before you carelessly attempted to get witty and snarky with me.

Mankind did just as much for Taker if not more than the other way around.

How so? Was Mankind somehow the established superstar putting the other guy over? Not really. The only way your statement holds any water is if you infer that Mankind made him look good by selling the shit out of his offense, and you should feel happy I'm giving you that much slack or credit, even though that clearly wasn't what you meant. With that said, sure, Foley was a great seller in the ring, but if you think that Taker needed Mankind for any reason you are dead wrong on that one. For fuck sake, the biggest moment of Mankind's career was Undertaker throwing him off the HIAC and through it, so who did what for who again?

Vader didn't do jack shit after he faced him except be fodder for Kane.

Irrelevant and questionable. You're trying to work off of one premise and desperately twist it to try and make some kind of relevant argument but it IS of no relevance. The fact of the matter is that Undertaker put Vader over and that made him look unstoppable. What happened afterwards makes no difference. The only thing that matters to this argument in the fact that he is one of the many people Taker put over, and the statement holds true that anytime Undertaker does that, it makes the other guy look that much better because of how big a deal Undertaker is. If Leon White simply wasn't able to transfer that into something more, or WWF creative didn't know what else to do with him, that has no reflection on The Undertaker or the relevance of him putting Vader over, and is of no consequence of the Undertaker regardless of how poorly and desperately you try to stretch reality to make it appear so.

Wasn't Shawn Michaels already a star so why are you using this example?

Correct, Shawn Michaels was already a star, but this was the first HIAC match which Shawn won. Regardless of how, he won, and he'd never beat Undertaker before either so that WAS a big deal and made Shawn an even bigger deal since he could then and forever go on to say "I won the first HIAC match by beating The Undertaker" and that remained to be a major feather in his cap all the way to his retirement.

Owes his whole career to Taker.

So you concede to the argument on Kane, smart boy. Really who would say otherwise, I will actually commend you on that one as you summed up the whole thing in one sentence there, touche.

You mean when he basically squashed him at Fully Loaded or lost because he couldn't even figure out that it wasn't Kurt but his brother at Survivor Series?

Why not both? Either way he was going up against him and he did lose to him no matter how it happened, showing that he could be out-smarted which he was. The rub still helped Angle and made him look even more legit going toe to toe with The Undertaker, especially at Fully Loaded. Even though he ultimately lost, he came back from an ass beating to take control of the match at one point which still spoke volumes about Kurt Angle. You're also forgetting The Invasion storyline where Kurt Angle pinned Undertaker at Survivor Series to win the match for The Alliance.

Went from feuding with him right to Mr. Ass.

First of all, that's not even accurate. He went on to feud against Triple H following that, and lost a number one contenders match due to interference from Mr. Ass which then led to a brief program with him. This was during his whole feud with the Corporate Ministry.

I'm assuming you mean at the end of 2001 when Taker took the Hardcore strap from him. RVD feuded with Goldust and was the curtain jerker for WM 18. Plus, RVD has always been over so Undertaker had nothing to do with it.

Yes that is the correct time. You forget, this was right when RVD first came to WWE and it was a big deal to be in any kind of feud with someone as big as The Undertaker. For the record, while you try to low-light everything about each of these guys, RVD went on to feud for the Intercontinental Title immediately following that, a higher belt than the Hardcore title, and as we all know he eventually became a WWE Champion, WWECW Champion, and MITB winner. Just saying, facing The Undertaker certainly didn't hurt him, and easily gave him a higher level of credibility whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Your also forgetting when RVD beat Undertaker CLEAN for the Undisputed title, only to have Ric Flair screw him over and restart the match which he then lost. He then went on to avenge his losses to Eddie Guerrero and then went on to feud with Brock Lesnar. And you mean to suggest that feuding with Undertaker had nothing to do with that? Bullfuck dude. Those matches showed that he could perform at the highest levels with the highest level of talent and deliver.

Tell me what was the Jeff Hardy highlight between that ladder match and when he left in 2003? I'll save you the research. There weren't any. He was right back to midcard and tag teaming.

It doesn't matter, he got a public endorsement from The Undertaker and whether you want to play it down or not, that legitimized him in the eyes of a lot of people and put everyone on notice that this guy was going to be somebody some-day which he was, WWE and WHC, on top of multiple other titles. Some praises are bigger than simply winning a match and this was one of those cases. That was also a big deal because it was an official title match for the Undisputed Title which he was in shortly after going solo.

Also, I can tell you the highlight after that, going on to compete for and win numerous titles, teaming with Shawn Michaels, and simply becoming a majorly over face. Don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes, Hardy did benefit from facing The Undertaker.

Already was elevated from beating Hogan and Rock. Taker had to have his hand basically broken and didn't even do the job at Unforgiven.

He was already champion, true, but Undertaker was his first test as champion and still showed that Lesnar was for real i.e. elevating him further. And, while you are right that Undertaker didn't do the job at Unforgiven, he DID do the job at No Mercy putting him over BIG TIME in a HIAC match where Lesnar brutalized him in a fashion few ever have.

When has Big Show been elevated as a direct result from facing him?

Uhhhh, any time he was in the ring with him. How about prior to WM 19 in that entire feud....Duuuuuh. Or how about when Big Show faced Undertaker on Raw for the WWF Championship shortly after his arrival and choke slammed him through the fucking mat? Like that didn't make him look good? Or how about when they teamed together and won the tag titles shortly after that? OH, that didn't help elevate him either huh? Or what about in 2008 when he had yet another feud with Undertaker and had a number of good matches with him then too? He went on to challenge for the title in the Elimination Chamber following that, and prior to it was when he was humiliated and knocked out by Floyd Mayweather Jr., and then in a Singapore cane match with a bunch of mid-carders, I'd say it helped.

You better not be talking about their Buried Alive match. Hell, you would have been better off not even mentioning Vinnie Mac.

Dude, It happened though. In the books it says "Vince McMahon defeated The Undertaker in a Buried Alive match. While there is no elevating McMahon, he did put him over essentially. It just had to be mentioned.

Henry didn't do jack shit and he got injured and was gone for a year.

Yeah he only went on to beat Rey Mysterio on Smack Down while Mysterio was World Heavyweight Champion, compete in KOTR, enter a feud with Angle and beat him in a match, then went on a dominant run of injuring people prior to sustaining his own injury and having to take a hiatus only to return and go on another dominant streak which started with him beating up The Undertaker, then Kane, posting an open challenge no one answered because he was so dominant, then went into another feud with Undertaker which he did lose, but followed up by becoming the ECW champion, going on a successful tag team run, and then went of to have an amazing run winning the WHC finally. SO ACTUALLY, he benefited from his matches/feuds with Taker every time he got the rub.

That guy who was shipped to ECW feuding with Tommy Dreamer. What happened after Khali feuded with Cena? Championship.

What you're failing to see though is that they used Undertaker to legitimize him and make him look like a real monster, and then switch him to ECW to try and use that momentum to help ECW. That stint was very short though and saw him go to Raw where he immediately had a match against John Cena, which he won by DQ after Cena hit him with a chair. Khali laid him out though, and went on beat Kane at WM23. Once again, he was elevated and ultimately MADE by Undertaker in the WWE.

You should have just turned off your computer after you typed his name.

Why? He beat Undertaker once by DQ and once in a First Blood match, both of which obviously helped improve his resume big time as he went on to win a Beat The Clock challenge where he also cost Undertaker the win there, and went on to face Batista for the WHC at Royal Rumble. Maybe you're the one who should be shutting their computer off at this point.
That Punk who went right back to the midcard and lost most of his PPV matches in 2010. Great example.

To my knowledge, their first one-on-one match was in 2009. Why are you using Jericho as a basis for your argument?

First of all I'm not "using Jericho as a BASIS" for my argument, at least try to get something right. I just mentioned Jericho because he DID beat Undertaker for the WHC in the Elimination Chamber of all places, and that is obviously a big feather in his cap. No matter how it happened, his record shows that he's beat Undertaker for the WHC, bottom line. That's a big deal no matter who you are.

HHH was the best heel on the planet before he faced Taker in 2001. Undertaker didn't do much for him that Rock and Austin didn't already do.

I will give you this, you did admit that Triple H was the best heel on the planet so I have to give you kudos there, thank you sir. At any rate, I wasn't referring to WM17, I was talking about these last 2 WM's. Triple H was already going to go down as a legend and one of the greatest ever, but with his last two matches against Undertaker at WM, he's been propelled onto another level entirely, both of them for that matter. That would have been possible without The Undertaker, without The Streak, or without both of their efforts. Still, it's his encounters with The Undertaker these last two years that have put Triple H in a league of his own now.


Any Questions?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

So. Many. Errors.

You Wish




OH MY GOD, yep I'm really eating my words now after you brought forth such compelling evidence to your case. It's expected that you would say this considering the circumstances and your motive. The problem is, that's just your opinion, and one that you didn't even back up with anything which is pretty weak as well, so I don't see how you actually thought when you hit the little submit button that you had actually made any kind of relevant argument. I already covered this indirectly in my first post which I will show you.

I feel the exact same way about you.

What the fuck kind of logic is that you are trying to front here? Until Mankind came around, suddenly then Undertaker was better in the ring? Fuck no dude. First of all, his character was supposed to be slow and zombie like in the beginning, but as I noted the gimmick and his presence alone made for very captivating matches. The original Undertaker was seemingly unstoppable and impervious to pain or any kind of offense his opponent could bring at him, it was insane, and to make it even more compelling he was so dominant it was really something to behold when he did what he did. When he came back in the purple and black, THAT'S when he started speeding up in the ring, as his character had went through a development and was no longer the exact same one that he had portrayed before. This was an evolution of that character and his performance in the ring reflected that. I'm sorry if you weren't around to see it or were to dumb and responded with too much haste to have that realization before you carelessly attempted to get witty and snarky with me.






How so? Was Mankind somehow the established superstar putting the other guy over? Not really. The only way your statement holds any water is if you infer that Mankind made him look good by selling the shit out of his offense, and you should feel happy I'm giving you that much slack or credit, even though that clearly wasn't what you meant. With that said, sure, Foley was a great seller in the ring, but if you think that Taker needed Mankind for any reason you are dead wrong on that one. For fuck sake, the biggest moment of Mankind's career was Undertaker throwing him off the HIAC and through it, so who did what for who again?

Irrelevant and questionable. You're trying to work off of one premise and desperately twist it to try and make some kind of relevant argument but it IS of no relevance. The fact of the matter is that Undertaker put Vader over and that made him look unstoppable. What happened afterwards makes no difference. The only thing that matters to this argument in the fact that he is one of the many people Taker put over, and the statement holds true that anytime Undertaker does that, it makes the other guy look that much better because of how big a deal Undertaker is. If Leon White simply wasn't able to transfer that into something more, or WWF creative didn't know what else to do with him, that has no reflection on The Undertaker or the relevance of him putting Vader over, and is of no consequence of the Undertaker regardless of how poorly and desperately you try to stretch reality to make it appear so.

So let's say tomorrow night on Raw, Heath Slater beats John Cena clean in the middle of the ring. If Heath Slater goes on to do jack shit for the rest of his career, how much did that win really help him?

Why not both? Either way he was going up against him and he did lose to him no matter how it happened, showing that he could be out-smarted which he was. The rub still helped Angle and made him look even more legit going toe to toe with The Undertaker, especially at Fully Loaded. Even though he ultimately lost, he came back from an ass beating to take control of the match at one point which still spoke volumes about Kurt Angle. You're also forgetting The Invasion storyline where Kurt Angle pinned Undertaker at Survivor Series to win the match for The Alliance.

1. Kurt Angle didn't pin Undertaker to win the match for The Alliance.

2. Kurt Angle and Undertaker were already eliminated.

3. The Alliance didn't win.

4. The Rock pinned Austin with help from Kurt Angle.

That was fun.

Yes that is the correct time. You forget, this was right when RVD first came to WWE and it was a big deal to be in any kind of feud with someone as big as The Undertaker. For the record, while you try to low-light everything about each of these guys, RVD went on to feud for the Intercontinental Title immediately following that, a higher belt than the Hardcore title, and as we all know he eventually became a WWE Champion, WWECW Champion, and MITB winner. Just saying, facing The Undertaker certainly didn't hurt him, and easily gave him a higher level of credibility whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

That is some foolproof logic. I'm sure when RVD is inducted into the Hall of Fame, he'll pontificate about how he won the WWE Title and credit the Undertaker for beating him five years prior to that moment. Matter of fact, why don't we give Kurt Angle credit for beating John Cena in 2002 knowing what Cena has become?

Your also forgetting when RVD beat Undertaker CLEAN for the Undisputed title, only to have Ric Flair screw him over and restart the match which he then lost. He then went on to avenge his losses to Eddie Guerrero and then went on to feud with Brock Lesnar. And you mean to suggest that feuding with Undertaker had nothing to do with that? Bullfuck dude. Those matches showed that he could perform at the highest levels with the highest level of talent and deliver.

1. Undertaker's foot was on the ropes while the referee was counting.

2. RVD was fighting for the world title in 2001. Did Undertaker have anything to do with that? Did Undertaker have anything to do with RVD feuding with HHH over the title?

It doesn't matter, he got a public endorsement from The Undertaker and whether you want to play it down or not, that legitimized him in the eyes of a lot of people and put everyone on notice that this guy was going to be somebody some-day which he was, WWE and WHC, on top of multiple other titles. Some praises are bigger than simply winning a match and this was one of those cases. That was also a big deal because it was an official title match for the Undisputed Title which he was in shortly after going solo.



Also, I can tell you the highlight after that, going on to compete for and win numerous titles, teaming with Shawn Michaels, and simply becoming a majorly over face. Don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes, Hardy did benefit from facing The Undertaker.

You mean that thrilling European Title reign that lasted of all two weeks. I remember the other time he won too. For your pleasure, I dug up the footage.

[YOUTUBE]Ke1ZCOcQgu4[/YOUTUBE]

Just watch from the 6:09 to the 6:31 minute mark and you will view the awesomeness that was Jeff Hardy's third and last Hardcore Title reign.

You forgot that period of a month where Jeff Hardy tried to be a heel and failed miserably.

Also, he only had one tag match with HBK.

Again, that was fun.

Uhhhh, any time he was in the ring with him. How about prior to WM 19 in that entire feud....Duuuuuh. Or how about when Big Show faced Undertaker on Raw for the WWF Championship shortly after his arrival and choke slammed him through the fucking mat? Like that didn't make him look good? Or how about when they teamed together and won the tag titles shortly after that? OH, that didn't help elevate him either huh? Or what about in 2008 when he had yet another feud with Undertaker and had a number of good matches with him then too? He went on to challenge for the title in the Elimination Chamber following that, and prior to it was when he was humiliated and knocked out by Floyd Mayweather Jr., and then in a Singapore cane match with a bunch of mid-carders, I'd say it helped.

You mean those segments where Big Show was sending Undertaker gifts and all that shit to play mind games with Undertaker. Riveting stuff.

Dude, It happened though. In the books it says "Vince McMahon defeated The Undertaker in a Buried Alive match. While there is no elevating McMahon, he did put him over essentially. It just had to be mentioned.

You should have stop right there when you said "While there is no elevating McMahon." Would have saved me and you (especially you) a whole lot of trouble.

Yeah he only went on to beat Rey Mysterio on Smack Down while Mysterio was World Heavyweight Champion, compete in KOTR, enter a feud with Angle and beat him in a match, then went on a dominant run of injuring people prior to sustaining his own injury and having to take a hiatus only to return and go on another dominant streak which started with him beating up The Undertaker, then Kane, posting an open challenge no one answered because he was so dominant, then went into another feud with Undertaker which he did lose, but followed up by becoming the ECW champion, going on a successful tag team run, and then went of to have an amazing run winning the WHC finally. SO ACTUALLY, he benefited from his matches/feuds with Taker every time he got the rub.

So now you're giving credit to the Undertaker for Henry winning the world title? Mark Henry didn't win any tag titles. Him and MVP were just fodder for Jericho and Big Show.

What you're failing to see though is that they used Undertaker to legitimize him and make him look like a real monster, and then switch him to ECW to try and use that momentum to help ECW. That stint was very short though and saw him go to Raw where he immediately had a match against John Cena, which he won by DQ after Cena hit him with a chair. Khali laid him out though, and went on beat Kane at WM23. Once again, he was elevated and ultimately MADE by Undertaker in the WWE.

Khali rose to a higher position after LOSING to Cena than he was after LOSING to Undertaker.

 

[The Brain]

The Undertaker is an attraction -- a sideshow -- whereas John Cena is THE MAN.

Agreed. Taker has had a wonderful career but he has never been THE MAN. When Taker did main event he usually lost unless it was mania. Cena has been THE MAN for quite some time now and is a consistent main eventer and a consistent winner. He just comes up the winner more often in big matches.

The fact of the matter is that Undertaker put Vader over and that made him look unstoppable.

Correct, Shawn Michaels was already a star, but this was the first HIAC match which Shawn won. Regardless of how, he won, and he'd never beat Undertaker before either so that WAS a big deal and made Shawn an even bigger deal since he could then and forever go on to say "I won the first HIAC match by beating The Undertaker" and that remained to be a major feather in his cap all the way to his retirement.

Why not both? Either way he was going up against him and he did lose to him no matter how it happened, showing that he could be out-smarted which he was. The rub still helped Angle and made him look even more legit going toe to toe with The Undertaker, especially at Fully Loaded. Even though he ultimately lost, he came back from an ass beating to take control of the match at one point which still spoke volumes about Kurt Angle. You're also forgetting The Invasion storyline where Kurt Angle pinned Undertaker at Survivor Series to win the match for The Alliance.

Your also forgetting when RVD beat Undertaker CLEAN for the Undisputed title, only to have Ric Flair screw him over and restart the match which he then lost.

He was already champion, true, but Undertaker was his first test as champion and still showed that Lesnar was for real i.e. elevating him further. And, while you are right that Undertaker didn't do the job at Unforgiven, he DID do the job at No Mercy putting him over BIG TIME in a HIAC match where Lesnar brutalized him in a fashion few ever have.

Dude, It happened though. In the books it says "Vince McMahon defeated The Undertaker in a Buried Alive match. While there is no elevating McMahon, he did put him over essentially. It just had to be mentioned.

Why? He beat Undertaker once by DQ and once in a First Blood match, both of which obviously helped improve his resume big time as he went on to win a Beat The Clock challenge where he also cost Undertaker the win there, and went on to face Batista for the WHC at Royal Rumble. Maybe you're the one who should be shutting their computer off at this point.
That Punk who went right back to the midcard and lost most of his PPV matches in 2010. Great example.

Any Questions?

I have a question. Who are you supporting here? You say Undertaker yet you point out all these losses to somehow make your case. That seems backwards to me. I always find it funny when someone makes the argument that a wrestler put so many people over throughout his career so he should go over a bigger star in a bigger match. If Taker always puts people over why wouldn't he put Cena over here? Thanks for pointing out all the losses Taker suffered in his career. It helped me make my decision. I'll vote for the more consistent winner and vote John Cena.

 

[SSJPhenom]

No it's bullshit because it wasn't a prime Cena that 'Taker did that too. If it was I'd give you a nod, but it isn't.

I'll give you this. Cena wasn't in his prime at all. I was just using this example because people want to point out all of the time all of the top stars that Cena has beaten over the past 7 years. Well, the thing is that all of the top stars that Cena has beaten, 'Taker has also beaten.

Yeah he was a little busy being at the top of the UFC. Ya know, that mixed martial arts sport that has people watch to see guys beat the shit out of each other, without the theatrics during the actual fights. Nice on trying to diminish that. Sadly you didn't, nor could you.

I wasn't trying to diminish that at all. I was simply pointing out that fighting for the UFC and wrestling for the WWE are two very different animals. Do you disagree? Also, it had been awhile since Lesnar had competed in the UFC before he showed back up in the WWE. I think that it was worth pointing out that he hadn't wrestled since '04.

Also a guy that 'Taker has lost to more often than not. I don't see your point.

Regardless if 'Taker has lost to him or not; 'Taker does have a few victories over The Rock and Cena does not. Yet another name on the long list of greats that 'Taker has beaten.

Maybe you should expand upon that suggestion and say why Hogan is a tougher opponent. Hogan got some offense in, took his opponent's offense for a while, then Hulked up and won. That is how most Hogan matches went. Savage would work a guy over a lot more, and likely inflicting more damage than what Hogan would do. Unless we go with the nerve pinch, oh that devastating nerve hold!!

Now that nerve hold was devastating!! It doesn't matter how Hogan matches usually went and how Savage matches usually went. The fact is that prime Hogan won a hell of a lot more often then prime Savage. Going by that logic; then prime Hogan would have been tougher to defeat than prime Savage.

We won't even worry about the interference that it took for 'Taker to beat Hogan, then? Oh and Hogan beat 'Taker just six days later to regain his title. That's such a great example!

All Flair did was put a chair into the ring. 'Taker still had to get Hogan up to Tombstone him on it. Also, didn't 'Taker get up from the Atomic Leg Drop during that match? Who the hell did that back in the day? Andre didn't even do that. Anyway, in their rematch, didn't Hogan win because Bearer accidentally threw some ashes in 'Taker's face?

This is just more bullshit. He was not that good from '90-'96. He is all flare and little substance at this point. He got a little more substance from '97-99, but not much. '00-'03 was better for him, though '04-'10 was probably his best time though. Maybe '05 when Cena left SmackDown though. But he still just isn't as good as Cena. It really doesn't matter. Cena is better than Undertaker. I know you love the Undertaker, but he just isn't as good as Cena. I can sense a retort from you saying "No, he's better." which would just be another fallacy.

I'm tired of people saying that he wasn't that good from '90-'96. Why the hell wasn't he good? Back then in the world of wrestling it was all about gimmicks and 'Taker's gimmick didn't require that he put on wrestling clinics. He played his character and damn it he played it very damn well! After 'Mania '96 he started his feud with Mankind and that's when 'Taker started showing that he actually had wrestling chops. He redefined what it meant to be a big man in the business and showed that bigger wrestlers could also put on great in-ring performances.

If you want me to go with a defined prime for 'Taker then I am going to go with '04-'10. This is when he undoubtedly had the best matches of his career and was still one of the most dominant and iconic wrestlers in the WWE. As far as Cena being better; well the only thing that Cena has on 'Taker is that he is definitely a bigger draw then 'Taker, no doubt. However, in a "kayfabe" competition, Cena being a bigger draw or the face of the company means all of jack and shit. I'm not going to use 'Taker's 'Mania record at all; however, to say that 'Taker can't win the big match except for at 'Mania is ridiculous. 'Taker has 7 reigns as champion and only 3 of them came from a 'Mania match. He's also had several successful title defenses while he was champion and he's never defended his title at 'Mania. Let's not forget that he's won the Royal Rumble(big match), Elimination Chamber(big match), and several HIAC matches and what not. This myth that 'Taker loses in big matches is ridiculous because honestly, when he does lose in big matches, it usually comes down to interference because he rarely loses big matches clean. The same can be said for Cena. So in this match, with no interference and it being clean, I think that 'Taker goes over in one hell of a match.

It'll be damn close, but 'Taker wins off of a second Tombstone.

 

[shattered dreams]

Agreed. Taker has had a wonderful career but he has never been THE MAN. When Taker did main event he usually lost unless it was mania. Cena has been THE MAN for quite some time now and is a consistent main eventer and a consistent winner. He just comes up the winner more often in big matches.

How many people are going to capitalize every letter in man and pretend that is a sufficient argument? Truly a poor showing by the Cena crowd. The idea that Taker usually lost is nonsense, just like the idea that we should ignore WM. If your last sentence is true why not give the examples? Is it because Taker has beaten all these people in big matches as well?

 

[SSJPhenom]

How many people are going to capitalize every letter in man and pretend that is a sufficient argument? Truly a poor showing by the Cena crowd. The idea that Taker usually lost is nonsense, just like the idea that we should ignore WM. If your last sentence is true why not give the examples? Is it because Taker has beaten all these people in big matches as well?

Yes 'Taker has beaten all of these people in big matches. The fact is, the times that 'Taker has lost a big match clean are few and far between. 'Taker has never faced The Rock, Hogan, or Austin at 'Mania; however, he has beaten all three of them in title matches. Think about that for a second! 'Taker has beaten the three biggest draws in the history of Professional Wrestling in Championship matches! If those aren't considered big matches then I don't what is.

'Taker has lost his fair share of matches, sure; however, so has everybody. 'Taker has also won his fair share of matches. So, if this is going to be a clean match between Undertaker and Cena then I think that 'Taker would win it. It'll be close and all, but 'Taker will have his hand raised at the end of the match.

 

[The Brain]

How many people are going to capitalize every letter in man and pretend that is a sufficient argument? Truly a poor showing by the Cena crowd. The idea that Taker usually lost is nonsense, just like the idea that we should ignore WM. If your last sentence is true why not give the examples? Is it because Taker has beaten all these people in big matches as well?

It's the semi finals. Both these guys are among the best ever. I'm not going to make a big argument saying that Cena is light years ahead of Taker. If you want to name common opponents and see who has the edge go ahead. Cena beat HBK. So did Taker. Cena beat HHH. So did Taker. Cena beat Batista. So did Taker. Cena lost to Rock. So did Taker. See that's not really getting us anywhere. The fact is Cena has been the top guy for seven years. Taker was never the top guy. Even during his longest title reign in 1997 he was frequently overshadowed by Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Steve Austin. The first ppv after Taker won the title at WM13 featured Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin in the main event. The main event at SummerSlam 97 focused more on the Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels feud despite Taker going into the match as champion. I'm not trying to insult Taker. He's just never been the top guy like Cena has.