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

Discussion in 'Championship Region' started by klunderbunker, May 24, 2012.


Who Wins This Match?

  1. The Undertaker

  2. John Cena

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Diet Soda

    Diet Soda Mustang Sally <3

    Jan 3, 2012
    Likes Received:
    I believe this match will end via submission.

    Cena and Taker have just (narrowly) defeated two of the biggest stars in WWE history, so will be far from fresh. Taker has a mere two points advantage in terms of damage and energy spent.

    Both superstars have high impact finishers, in fact, Taker has three of them. Both men have extraordinary amounts of stamina. The Undertaker would kick out of an Attitude Adjustment just as easily as Cena would kick out of a Chokeslam (though a young Cena was pinned after a Last Ride in 2003).

    As we have seen in the past, it takes a hell of a lot to keep the Undertaker down for a 3 count. The last time I recall Undertaker losing cleanly in a regular singles match was to Bastita about 5 years ago, after a Spinebuster and 2 Batista Bombs.

    Nonetheless, Cena was put away by a Rock Bottom at 2 consecutive Wrestlemania main events. This is not, of course, representative of Cena's entire career. We know Cena is capable of pulling off victories in 'big match' scenarios; The Rock is simply Cena's Kryptonite.

    Yes, Cena would probably be pinned after 3 Tombstones in a row - who wouldn't? But Cena isn't exactly going to walk straight into that, is he? Perhaps whilst performing his 'You Can't See Me' spiel, Taker would do his trademark grab throat, stand up, and chokeslam routine. Easily reversible though.

    The decider will have to come by submission. Otherwise, it's pretty much a stalemate.
    John Cena has indeed won more matches by submission than the Undertaker, however, Cena has been using a submission finisher since early on in his career, whereas Taker only added Hell's Gate to his arsenal relatively recently.

    More importantly, and this is something that I argued in the Undertaker/Angle match, is that the Undertaker has never lost by submission.
    John Cena, on the other hand...
  2. Larry

    Larry Getting Noticed By Management

    Oct 12, 2011
    Likes Received:
    I didn't call you a ******, but you couldn't even get that right as to what I did say to a great start there.

    Oh yeah, same shit different day. Once again, if you think anything besides what Tastylces says is the status quo, you know nothing. What sound logic you posses.

    Ooooohhh I get it, you just can't get past your own personal bias, gotcha.;)

    And thank you for your confirmatory display of personal bias lent by not one shred of fact based evidence.

    That's one way to put it, but of course we both know that's not the whole story or even an accurate depiction of his time in that era. Should we then forget that upon his debut he effortlessly took out both Koko B. Ware and Dusty Rhodes, two guys who were both well known stars at the time, especially Rhodes? Should we also forget that he was regularly squashing people and putting them in body bags? Should we also forget and overlook that he beat another major star in his first WM appearance, Jimmy Snuka? Or should we overlook that after his debut and over the course of the next year taking him back to Survivor Series where regardless of how, he beat Hulk Hogan for his first WWE title, that he was feuding with Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior, Sgt. Slaughter, Sid Justice, and obviously Hulk Hogan???? None of that counts right? Those were all legends and top tier talent that he was just steamrolling through, but that serves no relevance here right?

    You are correct, following the win against Hogan he went on to feud with Jake Roberts, and while you try to play it down calling him a mid-carder which brings with it connotations of what we view a mid carder as today, Jake Roberts was a major star back then who challenged for multiple titles and if not for his personal demons he very well may have been a champion at some time but that had nothing to do with what a big star he was. Roberts is also lauded by many of you as being one of the best promo men of all time, the creator of the DDT, a great wrestler by any measure, etc.... But then when you come to bring him up in a situation like this you try to diminish him to in turn diminish the value of someone who feuded with him. Make up your mind.

    Taker also went on to feud with a lot of BIG MEN, and that was the norm at the time, to make a guy look good by putting him over big monster heels as they did with Undertaker and Kamala, Giant Gonzalez, and Yokozuna, all of which were depicted as major threats to The Undertaker.

    And, speaking of Yokozuna, since you're so hot on overlooking significant parts of people's careers, lets not forget that at that time Undertaker was involved in one of the biggest storylines of that time when Yokozuna with the aid of a bunch of other heels, put Undertaker in the Casket at Royal Rumble 94, leading to the whole "Rebirth" of The Undertaker, the fake Undertaker storyline, the "Search for the Undertaker" which was headed up by Leslie Neilson who was basically portraying his Naked Gun character Frank Drebin (This is significant because they had even brought in a major Hollywood actor for the angle which also points to how big a deal it was), then the eventual return of The Undertaker at SummerSlam 94. Undertaker was so irrelevant according to you, yet he was so over, so popular, and so relevant at the time this is what was going on with him, the most high profile angle of the time and Undertaker was easily one of the most popular guys when it was all transpiring. It should also be noted that Wrestling Observer acknowledged him as having the best gimmick from 1990-1994, 5 years in a row. So, you keep going on trying to play down the earlier part of his career and I'll keep knocking your dick in the dirt when you try.

    Let's keep going shall we, because after his return his popularity grew even more and he went on to avenge his loss to Yokozuna in another Casket Match, and this led us into the Next Generation era of The Undertaker.

    But Undertaker wasn't in need of a shot at the Main Event, he was already a main event player and they used him to try and keep Mabel over as a legit main event threat which didn't work because Mabel just sucked, but he was a big time player at the time having won the KOTR which meant a lot more then than it does now, and he even challenged Diesel for the WWF Title at the time as well. Don't forget either that his feud with Undertaker was very high profile at the time as well, as they ran the storyline of him and Yokozuna crushing the Undertakers face which led to the whole thing with him wearing the mask for a time and gaining his revenge against him guessed it, a casket match. His feud with Kama was also a big deal and featured very prominently as Kama stole his Urn and melted it down to make a necklace out of it. Kama at the time was also a major heel and a deadly force as apart of The Million Dollar Corportation.

    After those feuds, still in the Next Generation era, Taker went on to feud with Bret Hart who unmasked him, and Diesel, so I regret to inform you that you're whole argument is ended right there. You act as though he was irrelevant but the whole time him and the feuds he was involved in were featured very prominently and he was a top guy, facing the top heels of the time and faces. Should we forget about another big moment when he broke through the ring during Hart-Diesel and pulled him under the ring? That was huge. Then we all know what happened next, Undertaker beat him at WM, the guy who held the title for a full year, he beat clean at WM.

    This takes us into his next feud which came against Mankind. This predates the infamous HIAC match that would come down the road, but is very important because it was THIS FEUD that got Mankind over to begin with. Not only did it get Mankind over, but it also brought about new match types we had never seen such as the Boiler Room Brawl and Buried Alive match, and Armageddon Rules match which came against The Executioner who was also a big part of that feud. Next came his feud with Vader which didn't last too long, as Vader went on to team with Mankind and Undertaker went on to face Sycho Sid at WM13 and win his second WWF title.

    Next came one of the biggest storyline and feuds of The Undertakers career, which brought about the debut of Kane at HIAC where Undertaker was facing Shawn Michaels, again a top tier opponent and a 5 star rated match. The storyline continued with Undertaker facing Shawn Michaels in a Casket Match, which saw Kane trap him in the casket and set it on fire which was absolutely insane. The fire was put out and the casket opened, only to find that Undertaker had disappeared. Undertaker then faced Kane at WM14 to defeat Kane and then beat him again in an Inferno match shortly thereafter. Bottom line, Undertaker was a busy man all through the Next Generation Era, had a lot of big matches, big feuds, great matches and feuds, was involved in a lot of innovative matches, was at the top in one way or another, and by no means was irrelevant at any time. He was always a focal point within the WWF in one way or another as well, and his feuds were highlighted unlike many others.

    Ahhhh, The Attitude Era. This is called slight of hand people, that is what Tastycles is attempting here, but don't be fooled. He tries to make it appear as though Undertaker was of no significance, that he wasn't a main eventer, or that he was just a role player, but history will show you otherwise. I am not rewriting it, redefining it, I will only be telling it as it was and you will see that Tastycles is full of shit. I'll start by noting that this was Stone Cold Steve Austins era above all, so the fact that Undertaker didn't headline the PPV's like Austin is by and large irrelevant. In the Next Generation Era Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart were the main headliners at the time because of the direction the company took, trying to present a different kind of champion and separate itself from the Hogan Era which was dominated by big men mostly. Still, Undertaker WAS the NGE's main big man and as I showed you, was very prominently featured and was a cornerstone of the WWF's product.

    After WM14, The Undertakers feud with Mankind was reignited and we all know where this one went. Undertaker made Mankind famous by throwing him off the HIAC and through it, proving Mick Foley with the highlight of his career next to winning his first title. Tastycles would have you believe that was all Mankind, and indeed he was the one who took the bumps, but you can't ignore the fact that it was his feud with Undertaker that lead to all of it and it's one of the biggest moments in WWF history, one of many involving The Undertaker.

    Undertaker then went on to become Tag Team Champions with Stone Cold Steve Austin, but dropping them to Kane and Mankind shortly thereafter. Austin became WWF champion, and Undertaker then faced him for the title putting Austin over and much like Hogan handing the title over to Warrior at WM6, Taker handed over the belt to Austin as a sign of respect which was a major endorsement for Austin.

    This takes us into the Brothers of Destruction/Ministry of Darkness/ and Corporate Ministry, and it should be duly noted that it was a focal point of everything going on at the Main Event level, and was heavily tied to the Austin-McMahon Feud. When Kane and Undertaker became the BOD, Undertakers feud with SCSA continued and saw the brothers beat Stone Cold simultaneously at Breakdown IYH, which then let to a title match between Kane and Undertaker at Judgement Day IYH with Austin as the Special Guest Referee. After heavy interference from Paul Bearer aiding Undertaker to beat up Kane with a steel chair, Austin attacked Undertaker and counted them both out. This led to Undertaker going full heel following this match and starting The Ministry of Darkness. With this revelation, Undertaker continued his feud with Austin, costing him the title against The Rock, and then a Buried Alive match was scheduled between the two. Prior to this match is when Undertaker famously tried to embalm Austin alive, commit Kane to a mental asylum and had Austin tied to his Undertaker symbol, which was supposed to be a depiction of a crucifixion. Undertaker did not win the buried alive match as Kane interfered and cost him the match.

    The Ministry was a very high profile storyline going at the time as they did all kind of highly controversial things on television and were portrayed as a satanic cult led by Undertaker.

    Undertaker was not seen for a couple weeks after but returned after The Acolytes who were serving him already unbeknownst to anyone else, abducted the guy who would become Mideon as apart of The Ministry. It was then that Undertaker came back revealing that he was behind it and debuting a new look as the leader of The Ministry of Darkness and bringing Mideon in. The Ministry was a very high profile storyline going at the time as they did all kind of highly controversial things on television and were portrayed as a satanic cult led by Undertaker. This was followed by Mabel being abducted and converted into Viscera, and The Brood also joining The Ministry. Once the Ministry was assembled, Undertaker made it clear that he wanted to take over the WWF and get rid of McMahon.

    (I'm tired of typing so it's copy and paste time so I can save some time)

    Vince McMahon turned face during this time, claiming that Mark Calaway (Undertaker) was taking his gimmick too far, and that Calaway actually believed that he in fact was the Undertaker and that he was the second coming of the Lord of Darkness. This statement could be received as breaking the fourth wall of kayfabe, due to the use of Calaway's real name and the reference to gimmicks. McMahon, shook up, put Undertaker in the second-ever Inferno match, a rematch of the first as Undertaker faced off against his "brother" Kane (who had joined Vince's Corporation to avoid being committed to the aforementioned asylum). Undertaker defeated Kane again, and reduced the WWF owner to tears at the sight of a burning teddy bear. The bear was said to have once belonged to Stephanie McMahon (as a child).

    For weeks, Undertaker revealed that his Ministry actually took orders from a "greater power", and kept talking about a higher power who apparently owned the key to McMahon's heart and soul. After leaving a burning symbol resembling a crucifix in McMahon's yard, the Corporate leader ordered his enforcer, the Big Bossman, to face Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell match at WrestleMania XV. Undertaker claimed victory without much difficulty. After the match, the Brood lowered themselves from the ceiling onto the top of the cell and then lowered a noose to the Undertaker. He sent McMahon another, symbolic message by hanging Big Bossman from the cell.

    This was all a BIG BIG deal at the time through the Attitude Era. Undertaker by no means was curtain jerking or insignificant, this was in fact a major storyline that gained a lot of attention both good and bad because it was so controversial and they had went so far. More madness followed after that with Stephanie McMahon becoming a target of The Undertaker as well as Ken Shamrock and his sister. This led to the one and only voluntary deflection from the Ministry as The Brood refused orders to sacrifice Shamrocks sister, turning on Taker and leaving The Ministry.

    Next came The Corporate Ministry. On April 29, the pilot episode of "Smackdown" , The Undertaker merged his Ministry of Darkness with Shane's Corporation to form the Corporate Ministry. The two groups united in order to fight their common foes Steve Austin, The Rock and Vince McMahon.

    On the following episode of Raw, a new faction formed to oppose the Corporate Ministry. Former Corporation members Mankind, Ken Shamrock, Big Show and Test joined together to form The Union. The Union members felt that they were being screwed over by the Corporation ever since Shane had taken control of it from his father. Wanting revenge on his son, Vince soon united with the Union as they fought with the Corporate Ministry.

    As the Corporate Ministry's first act, Shane ordered a WWF Championship match at Over the Edge, putting The Undertaker against Steve Austin with Shane McMahon as The Undertaker's referee and Vince McMahon as Austin's referee. That night, Shane gave The Undertaker a quick 3-count for his third WWF Championship reign. That same night, The Rock defeated Triple H via disqualification and The Union defeated The Acolytes, Viscera and Big Bossman in an elimination match. A week later, The Acolytes defeated X-Pac and Kane to win the WWF Tag Team Championship.

    Meanwhile, The Undertaker's claim since the Ministry of Darkness that he served a higher power was expanded upon, as a mysterious cloaked figure even more powerful than Undertaker was shown giving orders from behind the scenes. Eventually, The Undertaker decided to serve Austin up to this greater power, who revealed his identity to Austin while dressed in a black robe and a hood that hid his face from the live audience. On June 7, the identity of the higher power was revealed as Vince McMahon. The entire scheme had been a plot to destroy Steve Austin. After the unveiling, Linda and Stephanie McMahon announced Austin as the new CEO of the WWF. They gave Austin control over 50% of the company, leaving Vince and Shane with 25% each.

    With Austin now feuding with the McMahons, The Undertaker faced a new challenger, The Rock. After Rock beat The Undertaker and Triple H in a handicap match, The Undertaker faced The Rock at King of the Ring for the title. Undertaker won the match and retained the title thanks to a sealing run-in by Triple H. That same night, Vince and Shane defeated Austin in a ladder match to win his 50% share of the company and regain full control of the WWF.

    The following week, The Acolytes lost their Tag Team Championship to the Hardy Boyz and The Undertaker lost his WWF Championship to Steve Austin. All three men got rematches at Fully Loaded. That night, Austin retained the WWF title in a First Blood Match by hitting The Undertaker with a television camera after an assist from X-Pac. According to the stipulations of the match, Austin's victory meant that Vince McMahon could no longer appear on WWF TV. If Austin had lost, he would have been unable to wrestle for the WWF title ever again. Meanwhile, The Acolytes defeated the Hardy Boyz and their manager Michael Hayes to regain the Tag Team Championship and Triple H defeated The Rock in a leather strap match to become the number one contender for the WWF Title. Two weeks later, the Acolytes would lose the Tag Team Championship to X-Pac and Kane.

    This isn't everything in it's totality, but it's more than enough to show that The Undertaker most definitely was a main eventer and a major focal point of everything going on at the time. This also just goes to show you how full of shit people are and how they try to manipulate information to make it look a certain way when the case is clearly quite different.

    As well as feuding with Triple H, Kurt Angle, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Brock Lesnar, Big Show, being a major part of The Invasion storyline, feuding with DDP, holding the Undisputed title, beating Cena at Vengeance(although this was before he won his first WWE title, it still happened). Keep trying to play your bullshit game boy, I've got you at every pass.

    Desperation stinks, you should find a new cologne. This is arguably Undertakers best run, from 2004-present, and so you're stretching to play it down. I don't even need to go into detail about this, Undertaker has been a big player the whole time, holding a number of titles, and was on SmackDown to give them more star power and you know it so don't try to act like he was relegated to some lower province because he just wasn't relevant anymore. This is also the era where The Streak has become more prominent than ever and as some have mentioned bigger than wrestling itself. Oh, and for the second half where you can count how many matches he's had on one hand, every one of those has been a 5 star classic and a major part of WrestleMania, try again. In the first four years he put in a lot of work to help elevate the other guys and keep the main event strong while they were rotating main eventers, and all of them faced Undertaker except Cena.

    Yeah, he just beat him at WrestleMania after the fact while Diesel was still a top guy, but prior to that had faced Bret Hart who was the top guy, and Shawn Michaels after that while he had been the top guy. Diesel was feuding with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels who were by and large the flag bearers of the NGE while champion.

    I'll give you the fact that he does't ALWAYS feud with "The Guy", but he has on a very consistent basis and when he's not he's generally helping build someone else, doing his duty for the company, or is still involved in some kind of high profile feud. Either way, his role and his significance to the company can not be diminished.

    Look, Cena may be a big deal right now and enjoyed some success over the last few years, but YOU would have to be ******ed to think that in that amount of time he's drawn more than Undertaker over the course of 20+ years with as much as he's been at the top, near the top, or involved in main event and high profile feuds. You also have to take into account that he's had legions of fans over the course of that time as well and is a figure bigger than John Cena whether Cena is "The Guy" or not. Triple H is also a bigger figure than Cena, so was Shawn Michaels, so is Vince McMahon, it's not a knock on Cena or downplaying his role as the face of the company, but the reality is that even though he is the face of the company, there are people there who are more tenured, who people have been fans of for far longer, who already have had long illustrious careers and stand as legends in their own right making them bigger figures than Cena in the grand scheme of things. Undertaker is THAT guy, and whether you are tired of hearing about it and no matter how much you attempt to play it down, he also has The Streak which is bigger than Cena by a long shot, an accomplishment not Cena or anyone else will ever accomplish.

    Yes, this is true. Cena's the full time guy and Undertaker has went part time in latter half of his career. Still, Undertaker is so big that he CAN come out once a year, have the fans falling over themselves for his presence, and then put on WrestleMania classics and help sell the gate in a big way as he defends The Streak. It's kind of unfair to try and use at this point though anyways as Taker is at the end of his career, where Cena is probably only half way through his active in ring career.

    And your going to sit there and act as though there aren't a ton of other factors which have added to that? What about the fact that at the same time with John Cena at the helm tv ratings have consistently dropped as have other PPV buy rates not including WrestleMania? That's a weak leg to try and stand on man, WrestleMania is the biggest event of the year, they advertise and build it up well, and they've used a lot of other tactics to try and attract more people like calling in The Rock and making celebrity interactions and appearances more of a mainstay and attraction, the whole fan axxess thing leading up to it, they've also been using bigger outdoor arenas to raise that number by being able to pack more people in, try and claim John Cena is solely responsible for the live gates of WrestleMania is ridiculous or to even suggest that he is the main accredited factor is just as ludicrous when the evidence throughout the rest of the year shows otherwise.

    Great, so one time when John Cena came back he was in an interesting enough feud that people tuned in. For the majority of the rest of the time ratings have dropped in both tv and ppv buys. Your point? I would also like to see you prove your statements as true regarding Undertaker and the ratings whenever he returns. Until you can do that, it's just something you're throwing out there to try and make a point, an invalid one at that based on the lack of proof.

    Yeah, 12 is more than 7, and at the same time he's also lost the title more, in half the time, so your point is moot. He's benefited from the era he's been apart of. It's been stated and is an observable fact, Undertaker doesn't need titles for everyone to know he's the man, they have however turned to him on a number of occasions in the latter half of his career when they needed someone to hold the title, and he did.

    I never said Takers best days weren't behind him, obviously they are, but the same can be said for Cena who hasn't had the kind of run you're trying to tout since 2007, the ratings have been dropping with him as the center of attention as have the PPV buy rates year to year, and I think it's safe to say that without a transcendant star like The Rock or Brock Lesnar, or another wrestler who can really go in the ring like CM Punk, Cena's appeal is slipping. Who else is there? Lord Tensai? Yeah we're all clamoring for that feud. John Lauranitis? Yeah that's big seller too, which is why Raw his a low for ratings recently(check the WZ news page if you doubt me).

    This is relevant why? I already noted he hasn't had a meaningful run since 07 so what's your point? Titles don't entirely make careers either, if that were so Ric Flair would unquestionably be the GOAT but we can all argue otherwise. Taker has a respectable amount of title reigns and him not having more isn't some kind of negative reflection on him. How many times must it be noted that he simply doesn't need a title to be seen as a big deal?

    He's not being pushed as the babyface of the company either, he's the biggest legend in the company. His place isn't to carry the title as frequently as possible, his place is to be The Undertaker, the biggest attraction in the WWE, and deliver every year at WrestleMania like only he can, defending The Streak. In the past his job has been to carry SmackDown as well, and get other people over through his matches and feuds with them.

    Yeah, that's right. He's had it more, and lost it more back and forth with people. That's what that is. He's had a couple long runs but he's still not had one for a long time. Takers titles have been here and there as needed when it was best for business, they don't just throw the title on him for no reason. John Cena's had the title and his long runs because he's John Cena, so that they could try to build him as the face of the company which they have. The circumstances for the two have been dramatically different. Taker hasn't needed built up since his debut, he was over immediately, they never had to try and weld a title to him to make him look like a big deal or like he was important, he's never received the kind of backlash from the fans Cena has either. He's still the only person I've ever seen in over 20 years that people have rejected so vehemently and got tired of so quickly as champion. There's a reason he's been kept away from it, CM Punk surpassed him as the merchandise seller, and because people have grown tired of seeing him as champion over and over.

    If you go back to 06-07 especially when he did have his long title runs, it can't be forgotten how Randy Orton became a big face when he WAS a heel because people wanted to see him have the belt instead of Cena and they were so tired of it. Anyone recall No Mercy 07 when Cena was injured and the belt was awarded to Orton? Yeah, people were relieved that it was finally off of Cena, then what commenced that night gave people a glimmer of hope of a WWE without Cena for at least the next 8 months or so, which was then spoiled at Royal Rumble when he made his surprise comeback. He then went on a bit of a losing streak after that too because they KNEW people were so tired of seeing him win ALL THE TIME. Even today still, he is booed as much or more than he is cheered.

    Why don't I reintroduce another perspective here since you can't seem to get it right and insist on trying to downplay everything.

    Who was also a legend in his own right and a beloved fan favorite. That was a big person at the time for him to go over. Snuka was past his "prime" per say but was far from being a "shit has been" and frankly, I'm kind of disappointed that you would speak so disrespectfully about the guy just to try and win an argument and down play one of the greatest achievements of all time. It makes you look petty, brash, unreasonable, and shows that you also have little to no class. Very nice.

    Another legend in his own right, a guy who was majorly over and challenged for multiple titles, one of the best promo men ever, and a legit threat to Undertaker at the time because he also had great psychology and really knew how to play the mind games with his opponents. Not to mention the inventor of the DDT.

    This is the only one you might have a point about, Giant Gonzalez was admittedly and undeniably HORRIBLE, but if you look back at the match Gonzalez tried to use Chloroform to take out The Undertaker as he was just that unstoppable, even after Gonzalez had put it on Taker quite a bit and it looked like he was going to lose. The wrestling itself wasn't great but it was a good story since Gonzalez after all WAS so huge and beating anyone that size is quite a daunting task, and the way they played it all out made it all seem more intense and kind of unpredictable.

    And a guy that people remembered for being a big threat to Hulk Hogan which is why this was a great match-up at the time. He didn't look past his prime, he just hadn't been around a lot. And for the love of God, do you really have to stoop to using "he's fat" as some kind of discredit to the guy? WTF is wrong with you dude?

    Yet he went on to have another feud after that and had been the WWF Champion for a full year previously to that, and dominated The Undertaker like no one else ever had or have since, only to have the dead man come back in true Undertaker fashion, like a freakin ghost out of the shell and beat him clean in the middle of the ring.

    And the current WWF Champion which Undertaker won from him, a very dominant heel for his entire run, and a guy who even got over as a face for a long time even though he was absolutely bat-shit insane. For some reason it just worked, and having Shawn Michaels to play off probably helped, as well as his imposing figure.

    Conceded, okay.

    Who was also hung afterwards in a moment that was rather disturbing and made Undertaker look more ruthless and merciless than ever. It was actually a good match and at the time Big Boss Man wasn't looked at as a has-been midcarder, he was the head of security for The Corporation and a familiar face that people knew was a legit tough guy. This was a big moment in an even bigger storyline involving The Ministry of Darkness and The Corporation which reached out into the other storylines as a result and shared the main event with Stone Cold vs The Rock.

    Conceded, okay.

    It's fuckin' Ric Flair for God Sake, C'mon!!! Not only was this also a good match but it was Ric Flair putting over The Undertaker, and it was also a prominent feud at the time. It wasn't the last time in his advanced age that Flair wrestled either, so are you suggesting that because he was older it was irrelevant for Taker or anyone else after that to bear Flair because I recall him going on a nice IC title run towards the end of his career in WWE, being a multi time tag champ with Batista and a key member of Evolution after that, and the list goes on. So if you're so desperate as to try and diminish Ric Flair of all people, you've got more problems than I had ever fathomed.

    It was Nathan Jones numb-nuts, at least get the name right. This was far from a farce, it was a heated feud between The Big Show and Undertaker, A-Train happened to get involved by attacking Undertaker after a match between Taker and Show, and Jones had become the protege of Undertaker and partner for the match. Jones however, was attacked before the match making this a handicap match. Later on during the match, Jones came down to the ring distracting Big Show while Taker finished A-Train for the victory.

    Yet he had been the one to cause Undertaker to be Buried Alive against Vince McMahon at Survivor Series which was a pivotal moment in Undertakers career, as he would return for this match as The Dead Man once again, defeating Kane after having haunted him for the last few months and warning him of his inevitable return for vengeance.

    Your estimations and claims about where Kane was at were pretty far off as well. Prior to the Buried Alive match he had been the IC champion, a Tag Champion, and challenged for the WHC against in a feud with Triple H that is now famous for the Katie Vick angle. Then followed up the Buried Alive match helping McMahon by competing in a Triple Threat match for the WHC against Triple H and Goldberg. It was after that when he entered into the feud with Matt Hardy and it was also a high profile feud at the time as Lita had become the focal point of said feud, become pregnant, supposedly by Kane, they had the whole wedding thing, etc.... So it wasn't like he was lost in obscurity exactly, he was a still a big point of attention. This was all after WM anyways so it really doesn't matter one way or another.

    And this was the beginning of a long feud between the two that elevated Orton and saw him BEAT the Undertaker at SummerSlam, and go on to beat him in a casket match as well. So, you could say this is where his re-launch started, so you can thank Undertaker for that one and putting him over too. Following all that he won the Survivor Series match by pinning Shawn Michaels of all people, the feud with Undertake commenced after that, which Taker won, but took a hiatus after winning, and then Orton went straight to title contention feuding with Mysterio and Angle, after that he went of to feud with Hogan, then after that DX with Edge as Rated-RKO, which was then followed by beating Shawn Michaels straight up, and then adding more people to his legend killer list such as RVD, Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, and Sgt Slaughter. This was followed by a feud with Cena which took us into No Mercy where he became champion, lost the title to Triple H, and then beat Triple H later that night to reclaim the title.

    So for some reason you've made it very apparent you have some kind of hatred for "fat" people, what does being fat have to do with anything? It's just very off putting of you and once again makes you look stupid since you feel the need to judge people like that. Either way, Mark Henry had been on a hell of a run leading up to this and HE was challenged by Undertaker for that match as a result. Call him what you will but prior to that he was fighting for the WHC at Royal Rumble. I wouldn't say he was a mid-carder by long shot, especially considering he then went on to be ECW champion for a good run.
  3. Larry

    Larry Getting Noticed By Management

    Oct 12, 2011
    Likes Received:
    And I just destroyed that theory so what gives? He's had much more than 6 good matches and 2 impressive victories, you're just being a douchebag and grasping at straws to try and make a point and look some big hot-shot internet smark. It's not working.

    And that's why you're stupid, no one should take anything you say seriously, and you're stupid.

    First and foremost, Undertaker has been part time for the last 4 years so you can swipe those right off your list there, and that takes us down to 2008 and prior. 94, he took time off for the Undertaker-Undertaker feud, 95 he suffered a legit orbital bone injury and took a short time off for that, he was there consistently for the next 4 straight years and despite your claims, wrestled rather consistently, not just on PPV's.

    In 99-00 had a brief hiatus and in 2002, in 03' he took a short time off to return as The Dead Man, he was active through 04, in 05 he took off a short period of time after the Orton feud, 06 he then returned for WM against Mark Henry and showed up the next month and began feuding with Khali, was gone for 2 months which was due to being beaten by Khali, beat him in their feud, was on SmackDown and then returned for a match with Kennedy 2 months later at No Mercy 06 which takes us to October. The Kennedy feud lasted into 07 where he won the RR and became WHC at WM23 and was rather active all through 06-07 and 08 and into 09 when he took his next hiatus of 4 months.

    So, breaking it down, over the course of 20+ years he's taken time off here and there due to storyline and injury, but been mostly active and consistent. These last few years he hasn't been as active, but his WM matches have more than made up for that.

    I will admit as you did note and I confirmed on my own, Cena has only had one long leave of absence, more than one, but only one long one so that's like, the only thing you've been accurate about thus far. Congratulations on having one valid point the whole time.

    That's great. That matters how? No offense to Slyfox, he's entitled to his opinion but basically every opinion that actually matters like PWI and WO says it was one of the best matches of the year, and it was a legendary battle back and forth the whole time.

    I think you're just playing it down because he did it 4 years in a row during the "prime" of John Cena when he was on the card every time and you just don't like that fact. It actually is show stealing though, 4 years in a row to be exact, and I'd say if you went back and watched a lot of the other WM matches he's had the fans strongly behind him, fully engaged. To suggest otherwise is pretty foolish honestly considering all the great matches you would HAVE to know he's had if you know half as much as you pretend you do.

    Obviously you thought you were making some kind of big point, but all you actually managed to do was give me ammunition.

    The first reason that was stupid is because in all three matches it was evident and clear that Undertaker had the support of the audience and that increased through each video, inadvertently showing him becoming more and more popular through the years.

    Reason number two, these videos also show a progression through the years of work rate and general improvements in the ring from the earlier incarnation of the Undertaker to the latter.

    Reason number three, In all three videos you've shown Undertaker vs a bigger opponent where he had to do most of the work to make the match, which shows his ability to make a match with anybody.

    Reason number four, you thought you were going to post some matches to make Undertaker somehow look bad. Instead what you did was post videos that showed where he was in bad situations with shitty opponents, but was still able to make the matches pretty good. This in turn backfires on you as you've unintentionally helped his case.

    The WM 9 match was actually alright and they were telling a good story, there was some controversy as Gonzalez tried to cheat to win since he couldn't actually stop The Undertaker through conventional devices, and you see Undertaker come back to overcome the odds and start taking it to the bigger and seemingly indomitable opponent. Now Giant Gonzalez on the other hand sucks pretty hard, but Undertaker did do a good job of at least making him look as good as he could look, and got the most out of a very limited opponent.

    In the match vs Kane, you see Undertaker and Kane putting on a good big man match with a lot of power moves, back and forth, and even some technicality from Undertaker. The fans really popped for him when he came out, and really came to life towards the end with the finish. It was a solid 20 minute match between the two and while it was rather basic, another term that could be used is "classic", in regards to the way they worked the match. Of course Austin was the one getting the biggest pop, but that was kind of a given considering when it took place and what was going on at the time.

    Taker vs Khali wasn't bad at all either, and that's saying something considering Undertaker got a decent match out of Khali. He did most of the work once again like he did in the other two matches shown, and made a decent match with someone very limited in the ring once again.

    Really? Did you just decide that or did some other authority state that being well known outside of wrestling was some major criteria. Even if it is, Undertaker IS well known outside of wrestling, he's such a huge figure that everyone knows who he is even though he hasn't done a lot outside wrestling. Sure, he's never been invited to the Orange Bowl, but he's never been a public figure for them anyways. Undertaker IS an international star, don't confuse that, everyone knows who the Undertaker is, and he's never needed to do movies and make albums and public appearances for people to know him and remember him.

    And it's stupid that you're trying. Really, you've made a complete ass of yourself with ridiculous statement after ridiculous statement. I already went through all these names in my post to Little Jerry's Kid, so you can go through that to gain a broader understanding regarding the rest of these people than what your insufficient brain power and comprehension has allowed you.

    I said myself that simply losing to someone isn't always putting them over, that was apart of my first sentence of the paragraph you quoted, so correction sir, I did not miss that point, you simply overlooked where I clearly went over that. As far as no-selling goes, Undertaker sold a ton for Triple H in both Mania matches, and even if he didn't hand over the house to Mark Henry, you can't forget that no-selling has always been apart of the Undertaker character to show his imperiousness and it doesn't dominate the match, but does come into play at some point just the way the "Hulk Up" used to.

    How so? Undertaker was the more established star with the longer tenure, and he did his part to help further those two, what part of me noting that has anything to do with "Bias Fanboyism" and BTW you might not want to be throwing those kinds of words around the way you've been on your knees for Cena. And, Yes Cena wasn't as big a star as JBL yet, he was on his way up and JBL made that happen, that's the fuckin' truth plain and simple whether you like that or not. You'd be either bold face lying or deluding yourself to say otherwise.

    No, he's a main attraction and there's a difference. I think that's rather disrespectful to say about Undertaker as he's been such a prominent figure in the company for so many years and been so much more than a sideshow. He's been a locker room leader, a top draw and a top performer, a main attraction through all the years standing the test of time, and he's a multi time champion that's stuck with the company all these years through thick and thin. He's not a sideshow, he's a legend and a great wrestler, one of the greatest of all time.

    And my point was that Undertaker has done it bigger and better, even though he has a lot more to move around being a much bigger guy. Basically what I am saying is, he's far better in the ring despite being so big which is normally limiting for most his size. He's not just good for a big man, he's good period, and better than a lot of guys smaller than him who should be able to do more but simply don't or can't, like Cena.

    I know, the boo's are undeniable and deafening when you're in attendance. Taker gets the bigger pop/cheers from the fans, and you can't deny that. Sure Cena gets his "controversial reaction" but Taker is basically loved by all whereas Cena has a solid legion of fans who can't stand him everywhere he goes and boo him relentlessly, what a face huh?

    But what was that first part again??? Oh right, he beat Hogan. That's all that need be said. Go back and look though, it was apparent in the matches through the story they told that Undertaker was too much for Hogan. Flair got involved, but if you recall Hogan was already going down with a tombstone, so how am I inventing history here? I simply noted the bottom line fact. I know you have been troubled by that through this whole thing, you seem to really dislike facts, but you still have to deal with them as I lay them out one by one and they keep coming.

  4. Larry

    Larry Getting Noticed By Management

    Oct 12, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Very Funny.:glare:

    I pointed out the losses which he had a lot less of, to illustrate how much he's done for the company and how big of a star he really is. He's put over a lot of guys which has in turn helped them and the WWF/E itself, it's also just another way of showing how he is far and away a bigger star as he's had the ability TO put those people over as well. Cena has really put over ONE guy and that's CM Punk, and we all see how well he's going right? Taker is a die-hard fan favorite that the people pop big for whenever he is there, while Cena has most of the audience booing him incessantly. He's got a blown up record with a lot of meaningless title reigns, and they haven't always been so successful either.

    Taker has won far more than he's lost, and he wouldn't lose here either because like at WrestleMania, Taker simply doesn't lose the bigger matches. He's generally the one to end a feud thus winning the feud, simple as that and in a one off in a big match situation like this he always goes over, not just at WrestleMania. Even when it seems like someone else has won a feud with him, it is always rekindled and Undertaker ultimately wins the feud. I don't see any way Cena would beat him in a match of this magnitude. I think the last year has shown that Cena caves in the biggest matches as we saw with The Rock, CM Punk, and we can go further back to like 08-09 when he went on a losing streak of his own, being beaten by Triple H, JBL, Batista, and multiple times to both Orton and Edge where he racked up a number of title reigns gaining and losing the title to both of them.
  5. Smooth Sexual Chocolate

    Smooth Sexual Chocolate Grapefruits of Wrath

    Feb 16, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I enjoyed this retort the most, Sly. We both know that is in reference to a match that Taker and Cena both won as a tag team, and even though both men were victorious, only one was cunning enough to take the other one out in the end, and that man was The Undertaker.

    I just don't see how Cena is going to be able to put Taker away with the AA, maybe after the 4th or 5th one the two counts might get a little more exciting, but it's not going to put Taker away. There's also absolutely no way Taker taps to the STF, it's just not happening. It's the kind of situation the drives Cena to be a little more arrogant that usual, and that's when Cena is most vulnerable. The perfect example is Cena not being able to put The Rock away with his finishing moves, so he gets cocky, goes for his opponents move and gets caught taking the loss. When Cena realizes his finishing moves aren't going to get the job done he'll likely attempt a tombstone on Taker, and we've all seen what happens in those scenarios.

    Like a good company man, Cena does the deed and puts Taker over, the IWC raves about what a swell guy Cena is, while Taker advances, and attempts to do what Cena wasn't able to pull off not 3 months ago.
  6. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    May 23, 2007
    Likes Received:

    How was cowardly sneak attacking your own partner after he just won the match for you cunning? They weren't facing each other at the PPV, there was no reason for the attack, it was just a cowardly act. There was no cunning to it.

    Cena definitely is making Undertaker tap in this match. Why? Because I said so.

    But in all seriousness, Cena probably wouldn't get Undertaker with the first AA. But he'd get him with the third or fourth. Just like it took multiple finishers for Undertaker to beat Triple H last year.

    How does fighting someone who cowardly stabbed him in the back make him arrogant?

    And when Undertaker can't put Cena away with the Tombstone, he's going to grab a chair and hit Cena with it, getting DQ'd so Cena advances.

    We can play fantasy fiction booker all night.


    You literally shifted from kayfabe to WWE booking in the span of one sentence. What's the matter, is your argument so weak you can't stick to one side or the other?

    He's a great guy to be the face of the company. That's why he goes over a wrestler who used to put other wrestlers in body bags. We can't have someone who kills people be our top guy, now can we? Didn't think so.

    Cena is the guy the company would much rather lead the way forward. You know, kind of like he has done for the past 7 years...while Undertaker works the B show.

    Cena > Undertaker

    Cena wins.
  7. cult_of_icecream_bar

    cult_of_icecream_bar Pre-Show Stalwart

    Dec 17, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Wow,when the hell did Cena gain so many fans here in the smarky kingdom?Must be the great one's mojo.I vote the Undertaker.Reason:1.TO ME,taker is more entertaining
    2.TO ME,taker is better in wrestling
    3.TO ME,taker doesn't go off script like cena does.That's what make a great wrestler FOR ME.Vote:Taker
    Larry likes this.
  8. Smooth Sexual Chocolate

    Smooth Sexual Chocolate Grapefruits of Wrath

    Feb 16, 2009
    Likes Received:
    You call it a cowardly attack, I call it an opportunistic one. I mean, how often does the WHC champ get to make a statement against the WWE champ? If you're name isn't the Undertaker the answer is basically never.

    Both men have the ability to go over the other one cleanly, but in a straight up wrestling match where Cena only has two put away moves, and no duct tape in sight. Well, id put my money on Taker.

    Cena thinking he could put Taker away with a tombstone, just like he thought he could put Rock away with the people elbow is what makes him arrogant. A trend that has cost Cena matches in the past.

    Only way Taker uses a chair in this type of match is if the Ref has been knocked out, which is an all to common theme in many Taker matches, but it's also a theme that plays into his advantage, and you don't have to look too far back to see it. Taker wont DQ himself on this big of a stage, though if the ref does get taken out it's only going to play into Takers favor.

    No, not at all, I just take all aspects into account when deciding who to vote for. Plus with so many Cena is "The Man" arguments (not from you, but still ever present in this thread) it's only fair to spin that how it would most likely play out.

    I don't remember reading where this tournament takes place in a PG era environment, so I think having a guy who put other people in body bags is only going to play to that persons advantage. Considering we don't have to worry about pleasing PG era sponsors in this tournament.

    The same B-show that much of the IWC considered the A wrestling show during Takers last consistent run on Smackdown. The same show he was apart of when Taker, the champion of the B show, tagged with Cena, the champion of the A-show, on the A-show and proceeded to put him out of commission on his own show. Now why in world would they book the Champion of the lesser show to go over the champion of the A-show.

    I suspect it's that same kind of thought process that ends up dooming Cena in this situation.

    All the more reason to vote The Undertaker.
  9. shattered dreams

    shattered dreams Hexagonal Hedonist

    Jan 25, 2010
    Likes Received:
    So if you agree that Taker is among the best ever why does being the MAN even matter? What exactly is special about it? What the fuck does it even mean? Why is it relevant in who wins this match or is the greatest? Why when the distinction is admittedly tight are you depending on such a vague and unsubstantiated reasoning? Why has the Undertaker main evented WM twice in Cena's "era?" Both times being placed above a Cena title match, one time when the Undertaker wasn't even in a title match himself. Why has the Undertaker won as many main events at the biggest show of the year during this era?

    Pretty small selection of people although I believe your claim was Cena wins more big matches and/or Taker usually loses them. I asked you to prove that. You gave me a subset of people that Taker has actually faired better against since he has actually defeated the Rock. If we expand this list to include more of the all-time greats then it just becomes more lopsided for Taker. How exactly is Cena going to put the deadMAN down?

    I am still waiting for someone to explain the relevance of Hart and Austin in this discussion. Is someone arguing that Cena would have been booked ahead of those guys at that time? If they are then they are an idiot. If they aren't an idiot then all I see is someone proving my point. Cena had less competition so his period at the top isn't directly comparable. As far as Michaels goes, anyone arguing that Taker has always taken a back seat to him is being ridiculous. An older Undertaker has beaten pretty much everyone from Cena's era while Cena has beat nowhere near as many of the names from Taker's era. I don't see why Cena is greater just because he came around at a time when the business was declining.

    Cena's whole gimmick is never give up but when faced with an at worst equally resilient wrestler he is in trouble. How is Cena going to put Undertaker away? Taker isn't tapping so Cena is going to have to do it with his crappy FUs. Meanwhile Undertaker has better power finishing moves and is a superior technical wrestler. In Cena's era he hasn't beat Taker. Cena might go over in his era not at Wrestlemania (hardly a ringing endorsement of him as the MAN). If we put this in a neutral era why should Cena win?
  10. Skillz

    Skillz Getting Noticed By Management

    Sep 5, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Longevity does play a part in greatness, but a very small one. Drawing power, mainstream appeal and amount of time carrying the company are way more important. Taker had nothing to do with the success during wrestling's boom period, and he wasn't very good during that time either. He spent most of the late 90's overshadowed by Austin and McMahon. And in the early 00's he was overshadowed by Rock, HHH, Austin and even the likes of Angle and Jericho were above him at times.

    Because plenty of wrestlers had significant time with the belt in the 1990's. From Taker's debut in 1990 to 1999; Warrior had a 10 month reign, Hogan had an 8 month reign, Savage had a 5 month reign, Hart was champion for 654 days in total, Yokozuna had a 9 month reign, Diesel had a 12 month reign, HBK had an 8 month reign and a 5 month reign, and Austin was champion for 10 out of the last 24 months of the decade. The best reign Taker had was a lousy 4 and a half month reign where he was completely overshadowed by Hart and Austin. If Cena started in 1990 he could have easily had lengthy reigns with the title.

    I was simply pointing out that in half the career, Cena has been in more main events than Taker. Which means he has consistently been trusted to perform at the top of the card at Mania, unlike Taker who spent many years in the middle of the card wrestling nobodies. The Miz is by far the worst opponent Cena has ever faced at Mania. It's telling that Cena's worst ever Mania opponent was the WWE champion in the main event. Who was Taker's worst ever Mania opponent? Gonzales? Bundy? Bossman? Cena's average level of competition at Mania is FAR greater than Taker's, who half the time wrestled nobodies or has-beens.

    And yes, this is about winning, which is why I have some evidence later in this post that proves Cena is a better winner than Taker.

    Taker was behind HBK in 1996-1998. My point is whatever year you pick in the last 22 years, there has ALWAYS been at least one wrestler who was above Taker.

    Cena can't be overrated for never facing guys who it was impossible for him to face. Cena is 1-1 against Rock and Lesnar this year so he's not doing too bad. Yes, Taker beat most of those guys, but could he have beat them at Mania? The streak loses its impressiveness because half of those Mania victories were against nobodies or has-beens, and out of the victories that were impressive, NONE of them were against the megastars of the industry.

    There's a difference between beating 7 good opponents over the span of 20 years, and being the face of the company, day in and day out, for 7 straight years.

    It is a valid reason for why Taker and his streak are overrated. The first moment it was possible for Cena to face a megastar at Mania (Rock), the match was made a year in advance and box office records were broken. Why hasn't Taker ever faced a megastar (Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena) at Mania? There's certainly been plenty of opportunities over the years. Is it because Taker was never a big enough star to face those legends? Is it because WWE didn't have faith to put him in such a big match on such a big stage?

    Why? Are you denying that Taker has had bucket loads of terrible matches in his career?

    I've already explained how even his most impressive victories at Mania were never against the true top stars of the business (Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena). That puts a HUGE dent in the legitimacy of the streak. Even though his average level of competition is not great, for argument's sake let's concede that he is the most impressive winner in Mania history. WM however is just one night of the year. How is Taker's record in big match situations outside of WM? Let's take a look at some factual evidence that proves Cena is a much more prolific and consistent winner in big match situations. In the kayfabe world of professional wrestling, matches don't come much bigger than when they are for a world title. Therefore I am going to list all of the times Taker and Cena have challenged for a world title:

    Undertaker Wins
    Hogan Survivor Series 1991
    Sid WrestleMania 13
    Austin Over The Edge 1999
    Hogan Judgment Day 2002
    Batista WrestleMania 23
    Edge WrestleMania 24
    Punk Hell In A Cell 2009

    Undertaker Losses/DQs/No Contests/Etc
    Yokozuna Royal Rumble 1994
    Bret Royal Rumble 1996
    Bret Raw 1996
    Bret/Austin/Vader Final Four 1997
    Bret One Night Only 1997
    HBK Royal Rumble 1998
    Austin SummerSlam 1998
    Austin/Kane Breakdown 1998
    Kane Judgment Day 1998
    Austin Fully Loaded 1999
    HHH/Vince/Shane King Of The Ring 2000
    Rock/Benoit/Kane Unforgiven 2000
    Angle Survivor Series 2000
    Angle/Austin/Rock/HHH/Rikishi Armageddon 2000
    Austin/HHH Backlash 2001
    Austin Judgment Day 2001
    Lesnar Unforgiven 2002
    Lesnar No Mercy 2002
    Angle Smackdown 2003
    Lesnar No Mercy 2003
    JBL SummerSlam 2004
    JBL No Mercy 2004
    JBL/Eddie/Booker Armageddon 2004
    Angle No Way Out 2006
    Batista Cyber Sunday 2007
    Batista Survivor Series 2007
    Batista/Edge Armageddon 2007
    Edge Judgment Day 2008
    Edge One Night Stand 2008
    Edge/HHH/Show/Hardy/Kozlov Elimination Chamber 2008
    Punk Breaking Point 2009

    Cena Wins
    JBL WrestleMania 21
    Edge Royal Rumble 2006
    Edge Unforgiven 2006
    Jericho Survivor Series 2008
    Edge/Show WrestleMania 25
    Orton Breaking Point 2009
    Orton Bragging Rights 2009
    Sheamus/HHH/Orton/Ted/Kofi Elimination Chamber 2010
    Batista WrestleMania 26
    Miz/Morrison Extreme Rules 2011
    Mysterio Raw 2011
    Del Rio Night Of Champions 2011

    Cena Losses/DQs/No Contests/Etc
    Lesnar Backlash 2003
    Edge/RVD Raw 2006
    Edge SummerSlam 2006
    Orton No Way Out 2008
    Orton/HHH WrestleMania 24
    Orton/HHH/JBL Backlash 2008
    HHH Night Of Champions 2008
    Orton/HHH Night Of Champions 2009
    Orton SummerSlam 2009
    Sheamus Money In The Bank 2010
    Sheamus/Orton/Barrett/Edge/Jericho Night Of Champions 2010
    Miz WrestleMania 27
    Del Rio Vengeance 2011

    Taker has won 7 out of 38 times (I could be missing some out) when challenging for a world title, which is less than a 1 in 5 success rate. That is a HORRENDOUS record. Cena has won 12 out of 25 times. What is more impressive; winning 1 in every 5 opportunities you get a title shot, or winning 1 in every 2? And all of that is not even including successful title defenses, which only further proves Cena's superiority in big match situations. So, unless you want to say challenging for world titles aren't "big" matches, it's safe to say that Taker is a notorious loser in big match situations outside of Mania. Thus, Cena should win this match.

    It's also funny that people claim that Taker has always been above world titles. Then why has he challenged for them so many times? For someone who is above titles, he sure as hell tries to win lots of them, unsuccessfully I might add.
  11. The Brain

    The Brain King Of The Ring

    Mar 8, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Because John Cena is also among the best ever and when comparing two of the best there needs to be something to sway me in one direction.

    What is special about it and what does it mean? I think it's obvious but since you don't know it means he has been the number one guy in the number one promotion for seven years. I think that is pretty special. Undertaker has been a top guy for a longer period of time but he's never been the number one guy.

    The first time Taker main evented during Cena's "era" was because most of the time a face wins the mania main event. So even though it was a weak main event for mania Taker got the nod. I just pointed out that Cena lost that night so you can go ahead and pounce on it. The second time Taker main evented during Cena's "era" was because his opponent was HBK who was competing in his last match. Personally I think Cena vs. Batista should have been the main event regardless of that.

    Go ahead and expand the list. Just be careful who you call an all time great when compared to Cena.

    The relevance is even when he was champion Taker was not the top guy. Even when Cena isn't champion he is the top guy. Maybe Cena would have been up there with Hart, Austin, and Michaels in 1997. We'll never know. Cena not beating the names from Taker's era is a pretty lame argument. How is Cena supposed to have beaten people he's never worked with?

    Why shouldn't Cena win? He's a more consistent main event winner. Taker lost to Bret when Bret was the top guy. Taker lost to Austin when Austin was the top guy. Taker lost to Lesnar when Lesnar was the top guy. I don't see why he wouldn't lose to Cena when Cena's the top guy.

    I have to say I like your strategy. You go after someone who admits it's a very close match so you think you can weaken my argument because I won't bash Taker while overrating Cena. I'm not going to tear Taker down like some others do. I just think Cena's the better choice here.
  12. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Jun 16, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Someone who makes ******ed statements is a ******, no? Of course, basic logical arguments aren't your strong point.

    No, I don't have a strong opinion on either wrestler. I think both occasionally have great matches, but in the most part they're boring characters that aren't aimed at me, a man in my mid 20s. I probably prefer Cena, yes, but not to an extent that I'd vote for him over someone that doesn't deserve it. There's been 5 rounds, I've voted for both men thrice and against both men twice.

    I can't honestly say I recall the programmes with Rhodes and Ware, but Koko B. Ware is a jobber, always was. Snuka and Rhodes were stars in 1984, but in 1991, not so much. Dusty Rhodes spent that era being DiBiase's whipping boy and Snuka was almost 50, and hadn't beaten anyone but jobbers for years. What do you want me to say? Undertaker squashed a lot of jobbers when he debuted? Absolutely, but so has every monster heel in history.

    This is just pure bullshit. Taker has never fought Randy Savage, he lost to The Ultimate Warrior, was tag team partners with Sgt. Slaughter the only time they worked together, and wrestled Sid Justice to a double DQ one time. A highly tainted win against Hogan is all he has of this that is remotely true. I've bolded this, because if there's one thing that shows you to be the lying fanboy you are it's this.
    Jake Roberts was a great promo man, and the DDT was over as a move. But you could say the same about Santino and the cobra. Roberts wasn't that low on the card, but he was never a title challenger. A few IC titles here and there, and fighting for DiBiase's "title" are not World title shots, which is what you are trying to imply. How many major events did Roberts headline? Zero.

    You know Yokozuna beat him, right?
    He has a great gimmick, that doesn't mean he's the greatest wrestler of all time. Mr. Kennedy also (rightly, in my opinion) won that award. If you think anything but the break down in the Hart brothers' relationship was the main storyline in 1994, you either weren't watching/haven't read up about it properly, or just fucking stupid. That's not an opinion, it's fact based on exposure time on Raw, and position on PPV cards.
    He beat Yokozuna when Yokozuna had lost all momentum. Name one significant thing Yoko did after losing to Bret Hart at WrestleMania X?
    Just listen to yourself. Your trying to convince people that Kama Mustafa is a big deal, and you accuse me of warping facts.

    The guy who dropped the title to someone else 6 months previously and left the company 6 weeks later.
    Look, I can read Undertaker's wikipedia too, but you're offering nothing. He feuded with The Executioner? So fucking what? Nobody cared then, nobody cares now. Since 2005, John Cena has only feuded for the championship or with main eventers. Apart from Miz, who then became a main eventer. That's because he's big time and belongs in the big time.

    I've deleted a bit where you say, in 500 words "he feuded with Kane, and that was good."
    Nobody else in the WWF then knew how to push.

    Austin was already the champion. How is that in any way similar to Ultimate Warrior beating Hulk Hogan?

    I've deleted your copy and pasting from Wikipedia. It doesn't prove any point at all, it just tells us the storyline. I know the storyline, I was watching at the time. The Ministry played third fiddle to the Corporation and Austin, on a par with DX. I haven't checked, but I reckon X-Pac probably had as much mic time as Undertaker in 1998-9. That's not a slight, X-Pac was huge, but it's not greatest of all time.

    He was a main eventer, and probably the first time he consistently was, but a main eventer in the same way Jericho is now. Always in the question, never the long term solution. The Corporate Ministry was done to recreate McMahon as a threat, with Austin having already beaten him. What you don't say is that it went absolutely nowhere. He lost most of his feuds then, and his big win against The Rock wasn't clean.

    Are you being serious? Ric Flair, DDP, Hulk Hogan. Combined age in 2002: 148 years old. He lost the feud to Lesnar, Big Show was at his lowest ebb and he lost all but one match to Kurt Angle. I'm not denying that he was feuding with main eventers, but he evidently wasn't the main player at the time.

    I said he was on the B-Show and he was. The ratings didn't change when he moved there. Some boost!

    What? Mark Henry went nowhere. Batista was already a main eventer. Edge was already a 4 time world Champion. Orton didn't main event a PPV for at least a year after their match.

    You know Diesel was out the main event and shortly out the WWF right?

    His role is as a sideshow attraction, and he's great at it. But we're talking about the best wrestler ever, and he isn't it.

    If you don't understand numbers, I can't help you. Since Cena has been on top, the WWE's results have increased immensely. In Taker's career, he has maintained the status quo and nothing more.
    When you see an advert for the WWE, Cena's on it. When Gillette want someone to do a commercial. Cena does it. When WWE are promoting something, Cena goes. Why? Because he is more marketable and has greater mainstream appeal then anybody else.

    And yet Cena is drawing more now than Taker ever did.

    The ratings leapt from one week to the next when Cena returned. The ratings have been consistent over the years Cena has been on top. WrestleMania live gates have gone up. WrestleMania buyrates are up, not down.

    The figures are out there, you want to prove Taker makes the ratings jump, be my guest. Though I fancy you'd have done this if you were right. You're trying to attack the man, and no doubt you think you're smart, but you really, really aren't. I've already shown, up there in big writing that you're a liar. Now's your chance to prove I am. Except you can't, because I'm not.

    Except he's defended the title more than Taker and for longer. He's also lost fewer title challenges, as shown by someone else.

    John Cena's held the title for 366 days since 2008. That's only 80 days shorter than Taker has in his entire career.

    If he was feuding with Shawn Michaels etc. for all of the past 20 years, you'd have a point, but most of the time he's been out the title picture he has been feuding with nobodies like Kama Mustafa. That's not above the title. Also, being a better champion is relevant.

    This would make sense, if most of his title runs hadn't come recently, but they have. So it's bollocks. Like the rest of your argument.
    [bullshit redacted]

    What did he do in a year either side of their match. Actually, 5 years either side? Zero. Why? Because he was almost 50.

    And still a midcarder.

    He was fat. He was also totally irrelevant. He beat jobbers for a few months, turned up to Mania, lost, then was never seen again.

    Well, he did have another feud, which he lost.

    But it doesn't detract from the fact that his loss had a lot to do with leaving.

    I'm sure the Big Bossman's family are glad to hear he main evented WrestleMania.

    It's still an old man.

    Still a farce.

    Oh sorry, yes Katie Vick was a high point in the career of Kane, my mistake.

    There's a whole lot of wikipedia prose between "he beat Taker" and "he became champion". Like I said.

    After being on hiatus for a year.

    Cena put The Miz over. Cena put Edge over. Cena actually did put RVD over. Cena put Carlito over. Cena put Punk over. Cena put Umaga over.

    Cena has a winning record against all those wrestlers.

    Look, people of WrestleZone, vote how you want. You can vote for Cena, whom I have supported with unbiased fact, or you can listen to Ba-Bomb's total bullshit, that veers from fantasy to misinterpretation and misunderstanding at whim. Undertaker has achieved a shedload, but he's not in the top two of all time, so don't put him there.
  13. Pyro180

    Pyro180 Dark Match Jobber

    Apr 18, 2012
    Likes Received:
    How on earth is John Cena beating Undertaker in the polls. Im not saying Cena is bad by any means, but come one. were talking about the legendary Undertaker here. The streak, countless over the top matches, world titles, rare to find a bad moment with taker.
  14. The Gribbler

    The Gribbler Gribble me this, Gribble me that...

    Aug 12, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Pyro180 did you read the arguments, because I think overall the arguments for John Cena are very solid. I was on Cena's side, only just at the beginning, but the arguments for Cena over Taker have really solidified my position.

    I think the Cena is the number one man in wrestling and in his prime, which is still going strong, he was the most reliable main event performer the WWE had. Cena has earned his spot.

    And furthermore all you need is to look at Cena beating Hulk Hogan last round, if people seperated those two then this should be a walk. Hogan was another number 1 for a long time, a main event performer who didn't lose very often. And people determined that Cena would have beaten him.

    I just think the argument for Cena is very strong.
  15. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    May 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Because it was.

    What statement is he making? That he can attack a guy from behind when he's not expecting it? Congratulations Undertaker, you're a coward.

    As opposed to the Undertaker who only has one move that he actually wins matches with anymore? Maybe if he had an urn to throw something in Cena's eyes, or a chair to Tombstone Cena on...

    Cena is where my money goes.

    Cena learned his lesson. He's not going to do that again. So your statement is irrelevant.

    You completely missed the point.

    No, you only take CERTAIN aspects into account when deciding who to vote for. You summarily dismiss every argument that works against Undertaker. Like the fact Cena is more likely to be booked to win this, Cena has had the title for much longer periods, that Undertaker has NEVER been the guy to lead the company, that outside of Wrestlemania Taker's record is not nearly as stellar as people want to think it is, that Undertaker was never a consistent world title contender until well past his physical prime, etc.

    An argument you are considering, correct?

    I don't remember saying it was. I also don't have the first clue as to how that matters. :shrug:

    How so? Why would ANY company want to make the public face of their company someone who puts people in body bags? Even Wal-Mart wouldn't resort to something like that, and they'll do anything to get people to come into their stores.

    You were the one who was talking about who would be booked to win. Cena is much more likely to be booked to win in ANY era than Undertaker, because he does serve as a much better public face than Undertaker.


    Exactly. The IWC also said Mr. Kennedy was the next Austin, thinks Dolph Ziggler is good, can't figure out why ECW didn't work, and will blow their load in their pants during an ROH spotfest.

    I'm not really concerned about what the IWC thought, considering how wrong they usually are. What is far more telling is the fact the WWE considered it their B show, and that's where Undertaker was while Cena was drawing on the flagship show.

    With a cowardly sneak attack, we've already covered that.

    Want more proof of the fact Undertaker is scared of Cena? How about after Undertaker won the Royal Rumble in 2007, and he refused to use his Wrestlemania match against Cena? Why? Because he knew Cena would beat him. Like Cena did a month later at No Way Out.

    I don't blame Undertaker for being jealous of Cena, after Cena clearly has shown he's better than Undertaker.

    Cena > Undertaker
  16. iwinulose

    iwinulose HEAT ATTRACTER!!!!

    Jan 26, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Typically i would say undertaker hands down, and if it was wrestlemania undertaker would win, but cena would win any other time of the year. This would be a close match up, cena is good and can go for a long time, undertaker always puts 110% in all his matches. Cena for sure, but it would be a very close match. Cena takes it.
  17. Larry

    Larry Getting Noticed By Management

    Oct 12, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Uhhh, No. It's a person making a ******ed statement, just like the one you made above, the one before that, and the rest of them that have dominated your posts.

    Really, because this whole time all you've done is try to shit on the Undertaker and everything he's ever done, while in the meantime touting John Cena like he's king fucking Midas and everything he does is infallible. I'd call that bias and so would just about anyone else paying attention. At least I'm not trying to bullshit anyone, I definitely support Taker over Cena and I think that's an obvious choice, which it should be.

    That's because he didn't have programs with them, he demolished them upon his debut at Survivor Series, and I never said he had programs with them.

    They were both stars in the late 80's still and this is but a year or two removed from that, and no matter how much you try to play it down which is all you seem to do, they were in fact big stars and that's why Undertaker was booked to take them out with ease, because they were a big deal STILL and that would make him look like the monster they wanted him to be, and it worked.

    First and foremost, I never said he fought Randy Savage, I named Savage in a long line of people he was involved in feuds with which he was when he and Jake Roberts were briefly allies. The point was that he was working with all the biggest stars, which you clearly overlooked, or purposefully tried to ignore since that was something of actual significance against your shit argument.

    By DQ in a match where he was being dominated, but that's not the point or what even matters. The point was once again, that Undertaker worked with all the biggest stars at the time and was a major star from the get-go by association and his crazy gimmick as a result.

    Yes, he worked with all of them, and they were all the biggest stars of the time, just like I said. You try to paint me a liar but go back and look at what I said. You can try to twist it and turn it into whatever you want but the fact remains that I was right in my point, you've had no opposition to it other than trying to call me a liar, and you were dead wrong from the get-go about the early goings of his career. Take your ass beating like a man and get the fuck over it.

    Let me rephrase that for you, "Yes, you were completely right about Jake Roberts, but I'm a desperately trying to look like I know anything about what I'm talking about, so I'm just going to make some kind of disparaging comparison to try and make a point". Santino isn't even fucking comparable, but you know know low so of course nothing will stop you from trying to drag down Roberts by attempting to make that correlation.

    So not only do you admit here that I was right about Roberts and pathetically you played him down, but you also make a woeful contradiction. Here you say he was never a title challenger.

    Yet here you talk about him challenging for the IC title and the Million Dollar Championship. Then you jump to conclusions I never eluded to here.

    Irrelevant, he was a major star, and not every major star at the time got the opportunity to headline and there's a long list of them.

    Yeah, with the help of half the locker room, and it started the hottest storyline of the year.

    No, gimmick alone doesn't equal GOAT, but I never said it did either.

    No actually I remember it all well, and while the Hart brothers feud was a major storyline going on at the time, the storyline with Undertaker was front and center as well starting at Survivor Series 93 and not actually ending until Survivor Series 94. I wouldn't try to use position on the PPV card as an argument either. For starters, the first actual match with Taker and Yokozuna was a TITLE MATCH at Royal Rumble 94 and happened only before the actual Royal Rumble match, which was customary at that time. It was the biggest story coming out of RR94 next to the controversial ending to the RR match itself so you can lay that to rest.

    The rest of the Hart feud took place between the time that Undertaker was gone, and until he came back at SummerSlam 94, where Undetaker vs Undertaker was the Main Event. So, naturally while Taker was gone, that received a lot of attention, however the WWF also made it a point to keep the whole Undertaker storyline going strong the whole time with the absence of the actual Undertaker and the "Search for the Undertaker" so please don't try to play down the prominence of it again. Just because I am a nice guy though, I will lend you the credit that the Hart Feud won Feud of the Year in 94, and Dave Meltzer gave a 5 star rating to Owen-Bret at SS. Still, the biggest event of that night was the return of the Undertaker though.

    Being a tag team champion with Owen Hart. That actually mattered back then and you know that to be true as well, and he and Owen were a major tag team with Jim Cornette as their manager. What's really important however was that the momentum of the feud between the two was far from gone, and it was a re-match everyone wanted to see after the way the first one ended. It had CHUCK FUCKING NORRIS as the special guest referee for God sake man!!!!

    I wasn't saying he is a big deal now, but he surely was then at the time of the feud. That's not warping facts, that's what you were doing as you tried to discredit everything Undertaker was doing in the NGE, so I duly pointed out that he was doing a lot, having relevant feuds against relevant opponents, and you just accused me of warping facts. I simply pointed out that at the time Kama was a legit guy, a big bad ass, and it was a controversial feud that didn't look to favor Undertaker because Kama was a legit guy.

    In other words you had nothing to respond to that with because I was right and made you look stupid, so you thought you'd help me out and make yourself look even more stupid by trying to downplay both Bret Hart and Diesel, two of the most over guys in the WWF at the time and both former champions.

    I used wikipedia as a reference for everything to make sure I didn't leave anything out and so I could jog my memory. I lived through all of it and I remember it all well, I just thought it wiser to go linearly and use that to make sure I did it correctly which I did. I've offered everything up, you just haven't had an answer for it and don't like that I've done it.

    Notice as well how you completely disregarded everything else and tried to focus on the one weak link you thought you saw with The Executioner. Guess what co-jack, people DID care then, and while it's in the past and people may not care now, it was relevant then and it serves as further proof to how full of shit you've been the whole time about Undertakers career.

    So has Undertaker, and it doesn't get much more big time than him. I've also made sure to show how even though we don't see all of it as being big time now, the stuff Undertaker was involved in back in the day was big time stuff then too against your claims otherwise.

    That's fine, I would have likely done the same thing. It was a big feud at the time and heavily featured though which continues to serve my argument and destroy yours as you've tried to make it like he was irrelevant and insignificant through most of his career which has easily been debunked.

    No, he was was the featured performer on many occasions but just like John Cena now, there were also other people who are heavily featured and held titles and so on. You've just tried to make it look like Undertaker was not as significant but anyone who was around then knows that's complete horseshit, and that from his debut and all through the NGE and AE he was one of the top guys in the company against your claims.

    That's a gross oversimplification of what I said and you know it, and that I made a valid point which based on your response, you didn't have one for. The bottom line I noted WAS correct, it was the feud with Undertaker that MADE Mankind, and the HIAC match that set that in stone.

    The ACT itself was reminiscent of Hogan handing the belt over to Warrior as a sign of respect. I guess I shouldn't have given you the credit of thinking you'd get that.

    Nice try but you fail. Telling the storyline is what proves the point, and you know that but once again have just tried to disregard that and throw up a smoke screen to try and hide the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter was that Undertaker was highly involved in the major storylines in the AE with the BOD, Ministry, and Corporate Ministry. Once again, I was right and proved you were wrong, quit trying to hide it with your lame retorts that are still doing nothing for you.

    No actually, the documented facts show that it was hand in hand involved with the whole thing. You can try to revise the history books all you want but the plain black and white shows that you are either lying intentionally out of either desperation or stupidity, or that your perception of the whole ordeal was incredibly flawed.

    Yep, Enough Said. Next is where you try to discredit that and play it down any way you can but the fact stands to such a degree you can't even attempt to deny it at this point.

    You must have missed his debut and up to this point because he was always a main event guy. Not always the champion, not always THEE actual main event, but he was a main event level superstar.

    It doesn't matter does it? What that really equates to is that by this time he was already looked at as a respected veteran who could hold the title at any time, if you're comparing him to Jericho now.

    Sure it was done to bring McMahon back in as a threat, but there's a greater point there. Not only was this unquestionably the focal point of the company, but The Ministry of Darkness itself was used as the vehicle with Undertaker at the helm as the force that COULD go against Austin because Undertaker with his ministry especially was a major threat.

    Are you serious?:shrug: This might be one area where we're not so far apart. You challenged me to show what of relevance Undertaker was doing in his American Bad Ass/Big Evil days and I delivered much to your surprise apparently as you tried to low ball him. The age factor of Flair, Hogan, and DDP is a pretty low road to travel honestly. It's still two of the biggest legends of the business and another guy who was coming in to the WWE after being a big player in WCW. Yes, Undertaker lost to Lesnar, but as I noted, this was one of the guys he put over and helped elevate so I don't think that really counts against him, but for him as he did the job and REALLY put Lesnar over big time.

    Big Show's position at the time is arguable when you're trying to say it was his lowest point. I believe that was actually later when he was sent to OVW to be fair. He may have lost more to Angle as well, but once again, can't knock the guy for doing the job. He was obviously still a main player, he faced all of the main players at the time, this was just an era where he did more jobs than he had before. Don't forget that he still held the Undisputed title here too as well as other titles. He was very much a top guy.

    That's because he was never on there week in and week out like Cena, he was a bigger attraction that you saw less of. In reality he just had a contract not to do TV as much. When he was there though, it was usually to build towards a PPV match and unfortunately I don't have the numbers to look on and see if they increased or not, but people have always been interested in his feuds and his name on the roster was important for Smack Down.

    Hence: Keeping the main event strong while rotating main eventers. But are you going to deny he had great matches with all of them? I doubt it. And if you think Edge and Batista's feuds with Taker didn't help elevate their status you're dreaming.

    Orton still moved on to bigger things though and that was the point of which you can back-log his recovery and the feud that relaunched him into success as I already noted.

    Mark Henry actually DID go somewhere too. He beat the WHC Rey Mysterio shortly after Mania and went back on a path of destruction, and beat the crap out of Kurt Angle, he took out Batista, and all this occurred up until he got injured which stalled his success, not losing the Undertaker. They kept him looking strong after Mania.

    He was still a top guy, he just wasn't champion at the time, and he still had another feud after Taker at Mania so it's not like he lost that because he was immediately leaving.

    I strongly disagree and see that as a gross underestimation of him, his place in the company, and his career as would a lot of his peers.

    You're not being honest here. Since Cena has been on top, it is a widely known fact that ratings and PPV buyrates have slipped consistently. WrestleMania is the one exception and there's no way you can credit that to Cena when there is so much more that goes into it.

    Yeah, that's his role, to be the poster boy. That doesn't make him the biggest figure in the company, and BTW Undertaker appears on tons of WWE merchandise himself and has for a long time. Sure, Cena is marketable and the WWE has made sure of that, but that doesn't make him better than the Undertaker or in any way transfer into him beating him in this match.

    This is a falsehood and everyone knows it.

    I covered the WM thing already, you keep trying to attribute that to Cena but the fact of the matter is that there are far too many factors for the credit to fall on him. The WWE on the corporate level is who is largely responsible for that with the way they've marketed the events, where they've booked them, the things they've implemented to make it more fan friendly of an experience, etc.....


    The point I am making is not that he makes the ratings jump, but that conversely to John Cena, he doesn't make them drop, and that Cena isn't the draw you try to say he is and that the proof is in the fact that the PPV buy rates and TV ratings have dropped with him as the focus. I don't need to go find the numbers for you, it's common knowledge at this point. BTW I already did show that you were full of shit trying to make me look like a liar, and on a ton of other stuff.

    Actually what the other person managed to also show is that Taker has been in the title picture WAAAAAY more than Cena. He hasn't won as much because he's also put more people over which is why his record isn't as high in win/loss. Also, of course he's defended the title more since he has had it longer when he's had it. I never argued the length or frequency of his championship tenures, but the fact of the matter regarding them is that while he's had a couple long runs, he's also had a bunch of short ones and he did play hot potato with the title most notably between him and both Edge and Orton.

    Further proof that John Cena was force-fucked down our throats even though he was also getting booed unmercifully.

    I have firmly debunked your arguments about his level of competition in my last post as well as this one already. Next....

    That makes no sense at all. What I said made perfect sense especially considering what you noted above. Simply put, his role isn't the same as John Cena's at this stage of his career where as you put it "Most of his title runs have come". He's not needed to hold the title for long periods of time because unlike Cena in his long reigns, Taker has never needed them to be seen as a legit champion.

    Actually just 7 months before Undertaker debuted Jimmy Snuka faced Rick Rude at WrestleMania VI in the last match before Hogan-Warrior, he was in the Royal Rumble that year as well being the 19th guy eliminated so not a bad go in there, and he was actually on the same Survivor Series card where Undertaker debuted as part of the "Vipers" team headed by Jake the Snake Roberts. Good enough?

    But still a major star in the company, especially at that time. He wasn't looked at the way people look at midcarders today, and you keep saying it that way to play him down like he was the equivalent of Drew McIntyre or something. He's regarded by many as the best to never hold a world title so I wouldn't try to keep diminishing him, making yourself look even worse in the process

    Fat is irrelevant and childish of you to use against someone. The point is they MADE him relevant, he was obviously relevant enough to beat all the jobbers, and yes he faced Taker and lost at Mania never to be seen again, but it's not like he was a nobody opponent like you keep trying to make him out to be.

    Doesn't matter, he was still a top guy and had a great match with Undertaker.

    But it doesn't detract from the fact that his loss had a lot to do with leaving.

    Yeah, nothing relevant to say, at least your consistent.

    Still a legend of the business putting over another legend of the business.

    Not at all. It was an an ongoing feud to be settled at the biggest stage of them all that turned into a handicap match for Undertaker against two behemoths.

    Not necessarily, but he wasn't scraping the bottom of the barrel exactly feuding with Triple H now was he? Not like you had tried to portray by a long shot.

    But like I said, the only relevant point is that it was from that moment, his feud with Undertaker that he was back on his way and that feud is what re-elevated him and relaunched him.

    Another irrelevant point. He suffered an injury, point is he wasn't an irrelevant opponent and the rub did help him.

    Okay, and......How is Miz doing? or Umaga? Or Carlito? Punk is the only one he's really put over, as I said. Also, he and Edge shared enough wins/losses that you can't really say one put the other over, they just exchanged wins and losses plain and simple, they were both already over.

    Cena has a spotty record against all of those wrestlers.
  18. Hulk Hogan's Brother

    Hulk Hogan's Brother Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!

    Aug 1, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Ah yes, I had forgotten that. So I guess we have to discard this point as both guys have one unclean win over one another.

    I do not think that Undertaker was past his prime when Lesnar beat him. Undertaker has had some of his biggest wins and best title reigns after that point in time. He has defeated great competitors like HHH, HBK, Edge and Batista on a regular basis after that point. The streak, which is what haalf of Undertaker's aura is all about featured better competitors from that point onwards. So yeah, if a guy has big wins and big title reigns after a point that point cannot be said to be past a performer's prime.

    Niether do I think that you can let Austin really slide out of the equation. Sure, he is a bigger star than Cena but Cena is not exactly a nobody. That Austin example along with the Lesnar example does show that Undertaker is unable to beat the biggest stars of the company in their primes.

    As for Bret, Undertaker has never beaten him clean either. And I would say that though Bret was a face of the company for a while, he is possibly the weakest face apart from HBK that WWF has ever had.

    Either way you see it, Undertaker has never been booked to beat the top guy of the company. There is no doubt that he is great but a top guy in his prime is considered to be bigger than Undertaker.

    Never said anything about drawing. Even though I would say that Cena is a more consistent draw. Undertaker, even today, main events certain shows over the top guys when given the right story. He did the same back then and yet he has no clean wins over Hart, HBK or Austin in his prime. Still shows me that the top guy somehow finds a way to beat Undertaker even in Undertaker's prime. Mind you, Undertaker also main evented some shows over Austin in the Attitude Era and yet Austin beat him more often than not. That too, clean.

    OK let us see this.

    Yokozuna: Taker beat him when he had fallen off the card and was in the tag division losing to the likes of The Smoking Gunns.

    Bret: No clean win till date. Even record in both guys' prime if you consider unclean wins.

    HBK: Never beat him in his prime. Was only able to beat him when he was much older and broken down.

    Diesel: Like Tasty said, never faced him as champion. Only beat him when he was on his way out of the company.

    Austin: Routinely walloped Undertaker in his prime.

    Vader: Eh, superheavyweight who was past his prime in the WWF. Still Vader is 2-2 versus Taker.

    Kane: Yeah, Undertaker's whipping boy in Undertaker's prime who has really been a midcarder for life. No reason why he would beat Cena.

    The Rock: Even record considering the time after Rock won the World title belt.

    Mankind. Loses to everyone but has a good record against Taker.

    Still no reason why he should beat Cena.

    Undertaker is the closest thing that we have to Andre but he isn't nearly as unbeatable as Andre. Andre's aura stemmed from the fact that he was unbeatable, Taker's stems from his gimmick and his streak at WrestleMania. Also, the Taker has become a real must see attraction only in the last 4-5 years. Before that, he was just another guy who jumped between the main event and the upper midcard. Also, Cena could draw fighting anyone as has been evidenced time and again. The likes of Barrett and Miz, who only enjoyed main event status when they feuded with Cena can vouch for that. Cena makes everyone look like a credible threat. Undertaker may draw against a Bastion Booger if it is a match wherein he comes back after a long hiatus. If Undertaker were wrestling regularly and faced Booger, no one would be interested. This is an area where Cena actually trumps Undertaker.
  19. shattered dreams

    shattered dreams Hexagonal Hedonist

    Jan 25, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I get what you are saying, what I don't understand is why Taker being behind guys that are considered to be greater than Cena means Taker loses here. Taker wasn't greater than these guys and neither was Cena. Why does Cena win just because he had less staunch competition? Seems like Taker would be much more battle tested.

    This isn't making any sense to me. Ric Flair wrestled his last match on the first one, and it was vs Shawn Michaels, yet Taker still main evented. Taker's match received the most time of anyones that year. Cena, in a triple threat for the title with Orton and HHH, received over 9 less minutes and came on before Big Show and Mayweather. Also, as you stated Cena lost. The idea that the only reason Taker was in the main event that year was because of Michaels is too ridiculous to comment on further. They headlined over Cena-Batista for the WWE Championship and were given over 10 more minutes. If that doesn't sum up the relative status of this era vs previous ones then I don't know what does.

    Why does Cena not having to face as tough of competition make him better? In a nutshell this is what I just don't understand and almost no one has done anything but ignore it.

    Well in the only one-on-one match they had in "Cena's era" Undertaker did not lose.

    He also at least beat these guys, except for Lesnar who was only there for a short period of time and Cena did not beat him back then either.

    Actually I did pick you but it was mostly because you have a somewhat reasonable take on the match, unlike most, and I just wanted to see if I could better understand an argument that I just don't buy into. After our discourse, I have figured out that the real sticking issue for me is the idea that eras are directly equatable. I have never believed being a top guy now is equivalent to being a top guy in more successful times.
  20. Poop Master Flex

    Poop Master Flex Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Mar 1, 2008
    Likes Received:
    When Lesnar did beat him though he wasn't the deadman that he is known for now, he was the American Badass. Also Undertaker was getting fat and out of shape at this time as I recall him consistently getting more sluggish for a while during that frame of time. Not only that before he became the biker he had to get a hip replaced which is why he was off for 8 months in late 99-early 2000. I don't really consider his "American Badass" gimmick as part of his prime, also the gimmick itself wasn't as supernatural as the deadman gimmick he is best known for. I think that matters quite a bit considering his gimmick he had in his prime and was best known for was a gimmick of someone who you couldn't keep down and no matter what would just keep coming.

    I will also say his aura and streak are 2 different things. Undertaker had an unbeatable aura for years on end in his career, long before the streak was even a thing in sports entertainment. The streak adds to Undertaker but his aura would still be the same without it. Coming from someone that's watched Taker his entire career one of the last things I think of when it comes to Taker is the streak, he's so much more than that.

    He did beat Austin though when Austin was the #1 guy, he won the title from him at Over The Edge '99 and then defeated The Rock at King of the Ring '99 when he was almost on the same level of Austin's. When Lesnar beat him they were trying to make Lesnar this unstoppable, unbeatable monster that couldn't be stopped. Cena usually wins, but its not uncommon for him to lose and he's a lot more "human" than Lesnar's character was when he arrived.

    Bret and HBK didn't beat Undertaker clean either from what I remember. Although the WWE wasn't very popular back then they aren't very popular now either. Sure, they make more money now but that has a lot more to do with the way the WWE is currently structured as a business than it does with the current product. Although we will never know for sure if Bret or HBK was in their primes and the face of the WWE today, they would be doing just as good if not better than Cena is.

    If that were true Undertaker wouldn't have as much success as he does against top guys. Even today at Undertakers advanced age Cena beating him would be a feat. The only time Taker lost clean to top faces was before his prime, at the tail end of his prime, or after his prime. Also in his advanced age its not uncommon to see Taker go over top faces in the company. Take Batista for example. When Taker beat Batista he was in pretty high standing as a face and only Cena was popular, and not by much.

    Once again HBK and Bret don't have clean win's over Taker either, its a 2 way street. You can't keep saying "well Taker never beat so and so clean" if the same can be said for the other guy. Although I will point out that every time HBK or Bret did beat Undertaker it was from some outside incident's that made it happen. Such as Kane debuting, or Diesel costing Undertaker. All in all even when he lost throughout the match he still looked stronger than the top face.

    Beat him before he was in a tag team. Even though he was on the decline he was still the top heel in the company when taker beat him.

    Both times Taker looked stronger than Bret. Taker even had Hart beat for the title but then Diesel came down and screwed him over.

    Once again, even in defeat he still looked stronger and superior to Michaels every time.

    Fair enough, moving on. Even though Diesel did main event the next PPV.

    And Undertaker did the same on quite a few occasions.

    Even if past his prime Vader was booked as the top monster heel at the time and in '96 was the top heel in the WWE by far.

    When Undertaker beat him he was still pushed as unstoppable and on even playing field with Undertaker when Taker beat him. I don't count this though as the storyline dictated Taker would beat him.

    During Taker's prime he had a winning record against the Rock. The only real one on one match they had was KOTR '99 and Taker won. Him and Big Show also beat Rock and Sock in the only tag team buried alive match.

    Mankind was getting a massive push the second he came into the WWE and pretty much stayed that way his entire run. He was never THE GUY but he was a top guy pretty much his entire run. But yes he did lose a lot.

    In his prime though Undertaker was pretty close to as unbeatable as Andre was. There was always some sort of cheating or 10 guys beating on Taker for him to lose, its just how his character was portrayed at the time. Undertaker has been an attraction his entire career and he stayed that way no matter who he faced. Also no one gave 2 shits when Cena fought Miz, they cared because he was gonna interact with The Rock, Miz was the third wheel by FAR. That whole match you were just waiting to see him and The Rock have a confrontation, you only noticed The Miz was there because Cena had to fight someone before The Rock. It may as well have been Heath Slater Cena was fighting.

    Also you can't seriously count Barrett considering the storyline him and Cena were in. They were in the top storyline of 2010 and it was an intriguing storyline that got the attention of everyone. Barrett may have been a rookie, but he didn't look weak and looked like he belonged feuding with Cena, Barrett more than carried himself with Cena, Cena didn't carry Barrett. The Undertaker drew money fighting Giant Gonzalez for christ sakes, the worst wrestler in the history of the world. The Undertaker can and has drawn against some pretty lack luster wrestlers just because the Undertaker was involved.

    Even when Cena fought Del Rio at Night Of Champions in a title match you didn't give 2 shits, you were just waiting for him to face The Rock which was basically Cena in a nutshell from WM 27 to WM28, outside of a month where he feuded with Punk no one cared what Cena was doing, they were just waiting patiently for him to feud with The Rock. So in 2011 Cena feuded with Miz, R-Truth, Del Rio and Kane and in all cases mentioned no one cared.

    Maybe its just me, but I care when The Undertaker is just on the television, he doesn't have to do anything, him just being there grabs the attention of anyone. Whether its his entrance, just standing there, a promo or a match almost always you give a shit about the Undertaker and what he's doing.
  21. SSJPhenom

    SSJPhenom The Phenom of WZ

    May 8, 2007
    Likes Received:
    So we're just going to omit the part where Batista screwed over 'Taker, who was his partner at the time, and just left him there to get Sweet Chin Music and then the FU/AA? Also, when Cena got this "win" on 'Taker; it took a Spine-Buster from Batista, a Sweet Chin Music from HBK, and then the FU/AA from Cena to even put 'Taker down long enough to get the three count. So thanks for making it clear that Cena needed two other people to help him keep 'Taker down.

    Cena isn't going to have two other people helping him in this match and in a clean match, 'Taker woud be very hard to defeat as proof by your own video post. 'Taker would win.
  22. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Jun 16, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I can't be bothered to argue against this point by point, it's just so wrong. All I would say, and I mean this sincerely, you are by far the stupidest poster I have ever had any interaction with on this website. No doubt you think you're winning the argument, but when you opened your mouth Taker was 8 votes behind. He's now 22 votes behind.

    There's a few points that shoot your argument down in flames:

    1) You said he "feuded with Savage, Ultimate Warrior, Koko B. Ware, Sgt Slaughter, Sid Justice, Dusty Rhodes". I pointed out that he has wrestled a grand total of zero of these people in a televised singles match. he wrestled Sid at (pre-PPV era) King of the Ring which ended in a draw. He also wrestled Warrior and lost in a direct to video number. He's never been in the ring with Savage and wrestled Rhodes and Ware in an elimination match that he himself was eliminated from later on. Sgt. Slaughter was his tag partner. None of those things is a feud, they are matches, or lack thereof. That is not twisting the facts, it's stating them.

    2) Cena building Miz to be able to headline WrestleMania is more of a push to a specific wrestler than anything Taker has ever done.

    3) It's Kojak, not co-Jack, if you're going to throw insults around, at least use actual words, you fucking imbecile.

    4) You seem to be under the impression that I'm putting words into your mouth saying that you are claiming something makes Taker the greatest of all time. The inherent point of this tournament is to find that, therefore all of your arguments suggest that. Or did you not realise why you were here?

    5) You're great at reading and regurgitating Wikipedia. Not so great at interpreting information. Classic interaction:

    Ba-Bomb: Snuka was a legend
    Tastycles: By the time he fought Taker he was insignificant and irrelevant
    Ba-Bomb: Actually he was in WrestleMania VI, Survivor Series 1990 and Royal Rumble 1991 before he fought Taker.

    This is true. What you don't seem to understand is that being on a Survivor Series team that gets whitewashed by a team featuring The Warlord and Paul Roma, losing in less than 4 minutes at WrestleMania and being the 13th man in the Royal Rumble and the 8th man eliminated do not make you relevant.
  23. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    May 23, 2007
    Likes Received:

    Don't speak. Do you know how stupid you sound right now? Have you even paid attention to what SSC and I were talking about? SSC keeps talking about when Undertaker cowardly attacked Cena, his tag team partner, from behind, as if it was some great statement and some relevant point in this debate.

    Not only did Cena not sneak attack Undertaker and faced him like a man, Undertaker had a chance to face Cena 1 on 1 and chickened out and faced Batista instead. Then, in the match at No Way Out, Cena pinned Undertaker clean in the middle of the ring as part of the match.

    Don't speak. You'll only say something more stupid than you already did.
  24. Hulkamaniac

    Hulkamaniac Vote Hogan, Savage, Rocky and Thesz

    Sep 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I didn't look at the brackets beforehand, so I was hoping against hope that Cena would be against either Rocky or Thesz so I could vote against him after the travesty that was Cena advancing over his better in every way, Hulk Hogan. Sadly, he's against one of the most overrated guys in history. Undertaker is not a top 4 pro wrestler ever. You can tell this because he's not a guy who's been counted on to carry the company because when he got a shot at doing that, the numbers were abysmal. Cena is a good (not great) draw. Undertaker is a terrible draw. He's an attraction who plays better the less he is used. Cena is a guy you can put out there week in and week out.

    To top it off, kayfabe this plays right into Cena's hands. This is EXACTLY the type of match he would win. After escaping with a physically draining win over the Hulkster, everyone would be counting him out. He would get his ass whipped for most of the match, and then suddenly come from nowhere to hit reverse a Tombstone into an AA and grab the W.

    If this match was at Mania, it would be a different story, since Taker gets "special powers" there. It isn't.

    Vote Cena. Even though we SHOULD be voting for Hogan.
  25. Benson

    Benson Occasional Pre-Show

    May 3, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Ba-Bomb is a fucking moron.

    Really? Edge was already at the pinnacle of his career, not thanks to the Undertaker, but thanks to his opponent in this match, John Cena. The Undertaker feud did very little for Edge. Edge was already getting massive heat. He was already legitimate from pinning Cena and beating him clean, and outsmarting him at every turn. He got nothing from his feud with the Taker, where he was constantly using La Familia' to gang assault Undertaker and STILL losing. I give credit where credit is due here, Taker gave Edge a great match and really made him look great, but Edge was already MADE by the time the Taker feud came around.

    And Batista was made to look like a beast well before the Taker feud. I don't see how Batista being made to look scared by the Taker's tricks did him any favor. Again, the Mania match made him look really good, but Batista was already at the top. I don't see how it elevated his status much at all.
    Bernkastel and Uncle Sam like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"