New York Region, Fourth Round: TLC: (2) Undertaker vs. (3) Kurt Angle

[klunderbunker]

The following contest is a fourth round match in the New York Region.

This match takes place in Madison Square Garden, New York City, New York.

It is a TLC Match.

Rules: In this contest, the match is won by climbing a ladder and retrieving the object hanging above the ring. The use of tables, ladders and chairs are all allowed and these items will be placed around ringside.

#2 Undertaker

Vs.

#3 Kurt Angle

This contest is one fall with a 60 minute time limit. The match will take place in a 16 x 16 ring with no ramp leading to it. Any traditional managers for either competitor will be allowed at ringside.

As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.

The most votes in the voting period wins and in the case of a tie, the most written votes wins. There is one written vote per user, meaning if a poster make ten posts saying Bret should win that will count as a single vote. In the event of a second tie, both men are ELIMINATED, no questions asked. Only winners advance.

Voting will open in 48 hours and will be open for five days and all posts must be non-spam. You may use the 48 hours to present your cases as to why either competitor should/should not win.​

 

[The Brain]

"I've got your number." That's what Undertaker said to Angle after their match at No Way Out 2006. However, it seems to be the other way around. Angle won that match clean. He also beat Taker at Survivor Series 2000. The two had a draw on Smackdown on the fourth of July in 2002. It seems more like Angle has Taker's number. Granted none of those were TLC matches, but Angle always seems to find a way to beat Taker, or at least not lose to him. Both have had success in ladder matches so that seems to be a wash. Taker was taken to the limit by Jeff Hardy in a ladder match and Hardy aint no Angle. I'm thinking Angle finds a way to win here.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Remember 2002? Better yet, remember Jeff Hardy? You shouldn't, so shame on you if you do. I don't.

But anyway, remember 2002 when The Undertaker was world champion? That was quite good, wasn't it? But anyway, Jeff Hardy - whoever that is - nearly beat The Undertaker in a ladder match for the world title. Good match, actually. This isn't even main event Jeff Hardy, who was somewhat effective. This was midcard Jeff Hardy. The Jeff Hardy that gave himself a reputation for never actually fucking winning any of those ladder matches he was in.

Where am I going with this? I dunno. I don't even know who Jeff Hardy is. Kurt Angle once beat Chris Benoit in a ladder match. What are you asking me for? I'm just an old man.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Kurt Angle was great and still is above average. I, like many a fan, loved watching him wrestle in his prime. If one watched an Angle match during his WWE days, one was bound for a good technical performance. Keyword there was, TECHNICAL. This isn't just any ole Ladder Match. This is a TLC match were there are no rules and pin falls do count.

That brings me to the Phenom, the Deadman, The Undertaker. They don't call him the most dangerous entity in the WWE just for kicks. His reads like a who's who list of all time great wrestlers that he has defeated. 'Taker has been in the ring with and defeated every big name in wrestling over the last 20 years except for Sting and Goldberg(I think that's all that remains). Can Angle say the same thing?

Not only has he defeated almost every major star in wrestling, he's beat the hell out of most of them and even injured a few. He's thrown Mick Foley from the top of Hell In A Cell and also choke-slammed him through it. He put Shawn Michaels out of action for over 4 years. He set his brother, Kane, on fire. And, also, some of you have mentioned his Ladder Match with Jeff Hardy on Raw in 2002. Yes Hardy had his moments in the match, however, 'Taker prevailed and after the match(hell, during the match), 'Taker beat the absolute hell out of Hardy. This type of match is tailored made for people like Undertaker. People who love to brawl and who simply don't care how much they hurt the other person.

I'll go down as saying that The Undertaker beats the T total hell out of Angle in this match and comes away as the winner. Kurt Angle will Rest In Peace.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Brilliant post Sam, as always. But there is one thing I take issue with.

This isn't even main event Jeff Hardy, who was somewhat effective. This was midcard Jeff Hardy.

This is blasphemy. Jeff was not a mid carder at this time, he was still a mere tag team competitor. How dare you besmirch the great names of guys such as Val Venis or The Godfather by comparing them to Jeff Hardy?

At any rate, my vote is going to Angle. As already stated previously, Taker isn't necessarily the most successful guy when it comes to Ladder Matches. He barely nudged out a peon in Jeff Hardy and lost to Edge when his career was on the line. Angle, in addition to already having so many wins over Taker, has also beat Beniot in a Ladder Match. More impressive, no?

Vote Angle.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Undertaker vs Angle ..... in a TLC?!

Well I just don't know who will win, Taker has been part of two TLCs if I'm correct. His score: 1-1. He won against Hardy and lose against Edge. The masters of TLC.

On the other hand hand Angle has beating or hasn't lose either to Taker. TLC? If I'm correct NONE, he has participated in a ladder match but I don't even remember the result.

This one is hard, no idea who could win, I need to read some more arguments.

 

[The Underking]

Just going to point one thing out for all the people bringing up the ladder match Kurt vs. Benoit. That was a part of a two our three falls match and he needed Edge and Christian to win. Edge is halfway across North America at this point so there's no help there. Kurt would not beat The Undertaker in a Ladder Match setting. Angle might have beat him before but that was by roll up and jackknife counter and both times Taker was no where close to his prime.

Taker has legimate experience in the TLC Enviroment with one loss to Edge. That would be great and everything for Kurt except Edge had four other people helping him in that match and was ten seconds away from losing.

If Taker can beat Edge in a TLC Match he can beat Angle. Vote for Taker

 

[wrestlingfan]

Like many have said before Taker has more experience in TLC matches and in general has more experience in Hardcore matches then Angle does so I have to go with Taker herere.

 

[Coco]

Kurt Angle was great and still is above average. I, like many a fan, loved watching him wrestle in his prime. If one watched an Angle match during his WWE days, one was bound for a good technical performance. Keyword there was, TECHNICAL. This isn't just any ole Ladder Match. This is a TLC match were there are no rules and pin falls do count.

Yes, because it's not like Kurt Angle has ever brawled, used a weapon, or won a King Of The Mountain match. Angle's not some purist who only uses holds and throws and is out of his element in any other scenario. The mat wrestling specialist bit is a myth and like most guys in his era, he had to brawl and play the weapons game. To pretend this is a foreign concept to Angle is laughable at best. You're frankly grasping at straws. Angle has been in as many gimmick matches as Taker over the last decade.

Anyhow, people who are arguing that logic can do with that as they will. I'm voting for Angle because he has the more exciting entrance of the two. If this was American Bad Ass Taker, I might be tempted to vote for MMArk. But the photo in the opening post is of modern day Undertaker. That guy's entrance bores me. Here's to you, Kurt!

 

[The Crock]

I'm giving this one to Kurt Angle. Not only has Angle had better success against 'Taker than 'Taker has had against him, but as has been said quite a few times... 'Taker was taken to the limit by Jeff Hardy. He was literally one second away from losing the WWE Championship to Jeff Hardy. Now, if this were in 2008-2010, then okay, but not in 2002. This was the jobber Jeff Hardy. Angle on the other hand, won a ladder match (basically the same exact thing) against Chris Benoit. Angle is far and away the better pick here.

 

[justinsayne]

Wow as if Taker/Angle wouldn't be a hard enough match to pick a winner in, the TLC stipulation just makes it that much more unpredictable

Ultimately I don't think you can go wrong with picking either guy, but that said Taker is 1-1 in ladder matches beating Jeff Hardy, and losing to Edge who the the help of a small army in the form of La Familia to defeat Taker, Angle to my knowledge has only won one ladder match in his career, beating Benoit in the 3rd fall of a 3 stages of Hell match, however he needed the help of Edge & Christian to do so, since I don't see Edge coming to help Angle win this match due to being busy taking on Hogan in his own TLC match, I leaning toward Taker to well take this, it'll be close though

 

[SSJPhenom]

Yes, because it's not like Kurt Angle has ever brawled, used a weapon, or won a King Of The Mountain match. Angle's not some purist who only uses holds and throws and is out of his element in any other scenario. The mat wrestling specialist bit is a myth and like most guys in his era, he had to brawl and play the weapons game. To pretend this is a foreign concept to Angle is laughable at best. You're frankly grasping at straws. Angle has been in as many gimmick matches as Taker over the last decade.

I'm not grasping at straws here. 'Taker is the king of the gimmick match. Hell, many a gimmick match was made just for the Undertaker character. TLC isn't one of them, but who cares? To say that Angle has been in as many gimmick matches as 'Taker over the last decade is laughable. I'm sure if you were to count them up, 'Taker would win easily in that department.

Sure, Angle can brawl, but as well has The Undertaker? Even you don't believe such idiocy. 'Taker has more experience than Angle in TLC matches and he would, more than likely, beat Angle in this match.

Vote for 'Taker.

 

[Coco]

I'm not grasping at straws here. 'Taker is the king of the gimmick match. Hell, many a gimmick match was made just for the Undertaker character. TLC isn't one of them, but who cares? To say that Angle has been in as many gimmick matches as 'Taker over the last decade is laughable. I'm sure if you were to count them up, 'Taker would win easily in that department.

Not at the rate Undertaker takes time off.

Sure, Angle can brawl, but as well has The Undertaker? Even you don't believe such idiocy.

Why don't I? Because Taker wears MMA gloves and gets praised by the announcers as a "pure striker" (whatever the fuck that is)? No. I'm not as easy as you are. Taker's lost many a brawl and I'm not swayed by the notion that brawling skills give him any advantage over Angle. Heck, Angle's beaten enough tip top brawlers to negate any advantage that that gives Taker. Also, Angle's experience in KOTM negates Taker's TLC experience. So at the end of the day, what exactly does Taker have going for him here?

Your arguments for Taker are flimsy. Truly, deeply flimsy.

 

[The Underking]

Everybody tries to bring up the Jeff Hardy argument as saying he was a jobber BULLSHIT!. Since when has a jobber won the WWE European, Intercontinental, Hardcore, Light Heavyweight, and Tag Team Titles in under five years is a jobber. Truth is Jeff Hardy had beat some of the best at this point including beating Triple H clean. Somebody tell me when a jobber has done that. And fact is Jeff Hardy in the entire match was booked as the Underdog giving the fight of his life. The Commentators put it over aswell with them saying that Jeff might actually win it.

On the flip side how's this Kurt Angle he lost to this injury prone guy called Ken Anderson in a ladder match.No help needed what so ever Ken Anderson beat Angle in a ladder match clean. The same guy that needed help to beat Taker and by himself got his ass kicked and loss. If Ken Anderson can beat Angle in a ladder match Undertaker can aswell.

Also let this seep into your mind a bit Kurt has never won a ladder match without help. He has no help at this point how is Kurt going to beat a guy who is in everyway more sadistic, violent, and cold hearted then Angle. Truth is he doesn't Undertaker win's around the twenty-five minute mark.

 

[Coco]

Also let this seep into your mind a bit Kurt has never won a ladder match without help.

2007 King Of The Mountain.

Honestly, am I the only person who watched TNA in 2007? Fuck's sake. How is that not a ladder match? In no way. It is very much a ladder match. A ladder match Kurt Angle won against guys with serious ladder match experience such as Christian and AJ Styles.

And this is out of Kurt's element how? Go on. Enlighten me.

I'd let your garbage seep into my mind if it weren't garbage. But it is. Garbage, that is.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm not grasping at straws here. 'Taker is the king of the gimmick match. Hell, many a gimmick match was made just for the Undertaker character. TLC isn't one of them, but who cares? To say that Angle has been in as many gimmick matches as 'Taker over the last decade is laughable. I'm sure if you were to count them up, 'Taker would win easily in that department.

Sure, Angle can brawl, but as well has The Undertaker? Even you don't believe such idiocy. 'Taker has more experience than Angle in TLC matches and he would, more than likely, beat Angle in this match.

Vote for 'Taker.

In terms of who has had more gimmick matches, you're forgetting one little nugget of info regarding Angle. He's been in TNA for the past five years. I counted the number of gimmick matches Angle has had in TNA and I got around 30. If triple threat and four ways are included, that number increases to around 50 and nearing 60. Over the past decade, Undertaker has been injured or out roughly 20 percent. Throw in episodes of Raw and Smackdown, I'm pretty confident that Angle has had more gimmick matches.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Why don't I? Because Taker wears MMA gloves and gets praised by the announcers as a "pure striker" (whatever the fuck that is)? No. I'm not as easy as you are. Taker's lost many a brawl and I'm not swayed by the notion that brawling skills give him any advantage over Angle. Heck, Angle's beaten enough tip top brawlers to negate any advantage that that gives Taker. Also, Angle's experience in KOTM negates Taker's TLC experience. So at the end of the day, what exactly does Taker have going for him here?

Who gives a shit about him being a pure striker or whatever? How about because 'Taker has a proven record against guys like Foley, The Rock, Kane, Austin, HHH, Batista, Orton, HBK, Brock Lesnar, Big Show, and hell, even he had an all out brawl with Ric Flair at WrestleMania 18. Trust me, the list could go on and on. So why don't we look at that for why 'Taker is a better brawler? If you don't want to acknowledge that, look at the matches that he's been in to prove his brawling ability. HIAC, Buried Alive, Casket, LMS, Ladder, and so on. Hell, 'Taker is even a former Hardcore Champion. Matches like this go more to the style of the Undertaker than it does to Kurt Angle.

As I said in an earlier post; over the last 20 years, Undertaker has been in the ring with every major star in the wrestling business except for Sting and Goldberg. I think the experience factor is and always will be on the side of the Undertaker.

Your arguments for Taker are flimsy. Truly, deeply flimsy.

Your arguments are none the better than mine are. The online dick sucking of guys like Kurt Angle, Bret Hart, and even Chris Benoit end today.

'Taker takes this one hands down.

 

[SSJPhenom]

In terms of who has had more gimmick matches, you're forgetting one little nugget of info regarding Angle. He's been in TNA for the past five years. I counted the number of gimmick matches Angle has had in TNA and I got around 30. If triple threat and four ways are included, that number increases to around 50 and nearing 60. Over the past decade, Undertaker has been injured or out roughly 20 percent. Throw in episodes of Raw and Smackdown, I'm pretty confident that Angle has had more gimmick matches.

So then if Angle has been in more gimmick matches over the past decade than 'Taker, then match obviously fits the style of Angle over 'Taker, right?

I don't think it matters how many gimmick matches each has been in. This match goes to the style of Undertaker and he clearly has the advantage.

'Taker goes over in this one.

 

[Coco]

Who gives a shit about him being a pure striker or whatever? How about because 'Taker has a proven record against guys like Foley, The Rock, Kane, Austin, HHH, Batista, Orton, HBK, Brock Lesnar, Big Show, and hell, even he had an all out brawl with Ric Flair at WrestleMania 18.

Odd. Kurt Angle has also fought everyone you just listed. And he punched them. And he even won a few of those matches. In fact, Angle's actually managed to beat Lesnar, something Taker never did. Taker's superiority = not proven. You = unconvincing.

So why don't we look at that for why 'Taker is a better brawler? If you don't want to acknowledge that, look at the matches that he's been in to prove his brawling ability. HIAC, Buried Alive, Casket, LMS, Ladder, and so on. Hell, 'Taker is even a former Hardcore Champion. Matches like this go more to the style of the Undertaker than it does to Kurt Angle.

And yet Kurt Angle won a Hell in a Cell which involved Undertaker. He's been in ladder matches. He's been in LMS matches. He's also won the Hardcore Championship.

Taker's superiority = not proven. You = unconvincing.

As I said in an earlier post; over the last 20 years, Undertaker has been in the ring with every major star in the wrestling business except for Sting and Goldberg. I think the experience factor is and always will be on the side of the Undertaker.

Sounds like you're trying to make Angle out to be some scrub when that's the farthest thing from the case. Angle has been matching Taker stride for stride over the last decade. Experience isn't a factor when Angle has proven himself just as good as Taker in half the time.

The online dick sucking of guys like Kurt Angle, Bret Hart, and even Chris Benoit end today.

'Taker takes this one hands down.

See me in The Cage for further discussion of these points. If you're up for it. Or you can stay here and keep feebly failing to prove Taker's superior to Angle.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Odd. Kurt Angle has also fought everyone you just listed. And he punched them. And he even won a few of those matches. In fact, Angle's actually managed to beat Lesnar, something Taker never did. Taker's superiority = not proven. You = unconvincing.

'Taker beat everyone on that list except for Lesnar. So, to your point, Angle's superiority has not been proven either and much like you say I am, you are unconvincing.

Sounds like you're trying to make Angle out to be some scrub when that's the farthest thing from the case. Angle has been matching Taker stride for stride over the last decade. Experience isn't a factor when Angle has proven himself just as good as Taker in half the time.

I'm not trying to make Angle out to be a scrub at all, however, if we look at overall career and who's better, 'Taker wins.

Angle hasn't proven to be as good as 'Taker. One remains a top tier talent in the biggest wrestling company around. I'll let you describe the other.

Again, you haven't done anything to prove Angle's superiority.

See me in The Cage for further discussion of these points. If you're up for it. Or you can stay here and keep feebly failing to prove Taker's superior to Angle.

On my way.

 

[Coco]

'Taker beat everyone on that list except for Lesnar. So, to your point, Angle's superiority has not been proven either and much like you say I am, you are unconvincing.

Angle's beaten everyone on the list with the exception of Batista, a man who only avoided that fate because Angle and him weren't on the same show long enough for that issue to take it's natural course. Meanwhile, Lesnar lost to Angle and did not lose to Taker. It's certainly worth noting that the list of victims you posted shows Angle in a stronger light than it does Taker. Nothing unconvincing about that.

I'm not trying to make Angle out to be a scrub at all, however, if we look at overall career and who's better, 'Taker wins.

Is it because he has a spooky theme and gimmick matches based on his characters? Maybe it's longevity? It certainly has to be some lame garbage criteria like that, because quality of performance isn't something Taker can hold over Angle. Nor is kayfabe superiority.

Angle hasn't proven to be as good as 'Taker. One remains a top tier talent in the biggest wrestling company around. I'll let you describe the other.

One has achieved success outside of the WWE. The other is Vince McMahon's locker room enforcer and a labor management tool.

I'm not seeing anything all that special about Taker. Maybe instead of getting these discussions started with amateurish garbage about how Angle is primarily a technical wrestler, you could pull your heard out of Mark Calaway's ass. That'd really help move this along.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Undertaker a top-tier talent? You mean one great match a year top-tier talent. At least Angle has been on top of a wrestling company.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Is it because he has a spooky theme and gimmick matches based on his characters? Maybe it's longevity? It certainly has to be some lame garbage criteria like that, because quality of performance isn't something Taker can hold over Angle. Nor is kayfabe superiority.

'Taker can't really help that he had to spend many of his prime years facing people like Yokozuna, Giant Gonzalez, Kamala, King Kong Bundy, Papa Shango, and many other gimmick wrestlers that were pure crap. I think that it is worth mentioning, however, that when 'Taker stepped into the ring with people like Austin, The Rock, HBK, HHH, Mick Foley, and even Angle, he didn't disappoint. He even managed to get good WM performances out of Kane and Batista.

This myth that 'Taker can't perform is ridiculous. Especially when you look at the talent that he had to work with for a number of years. Angle wouldn't have been able to do anything with those people either and I say that with confidence because Shawn Michaels couldn't do anything with most of them.

One has achieved success outside of the WWE. The other is Vince McMahon's locker room enforcer and a labor management tool.

I think that we are confusing success with winning a Championship. When he goes with that company and draws crowds all over the world, we'll call that success.

But wait. "Taker has never been the top draw in the WWE." Is that what you're going to say next? That's true, but for 20 years, he's been a main stay with the WWE and he is their top special attraction.

I'm not seeing anything all that special about Taker. Maybe instead of getting these discussions started with amateurish garbage about how Angle is primarily a technical wrestler, you could pull your heard out of Mark Calaway's ass. That'd really help move this along.

So Angle's main style isn't that of a technician? Is that what you're saying? I never said that Angle couldn't brawl. Just that the Undertaker was better at it and that this match suits his style better than it does Angle's.

Undertaker a top-tier talent? You mean one great match a year top-tier talent. At least Angle has been on top of a wrestling company.

Sure he is a top-tier talent in the WWE. He draws money doesn't he?

 

[Coco]

'Taker can't really help that he had to spend many of his prime years facing people like Yokozuna, Giant Gonzalez, Kamala, King Kong Bundy, Papa Shango, and many other gimmick wrestlers that were pure crap. I think that it is worth mentioning, however, that when 'Taker stepped into the ring with people like Austin, The Rock, HBK, HHH, Mick Foley, and even Angle, he didn't disappoint. He even managed to get good WM performances out of Kane and Batista.

And yet Angle has gotten performances equal to or better than Taker got against all of those guys with the exception of Foley, who Angle didn't get to wrestler until Mrs. Foley's Baby Boy was well over the hill, and Kane, who was custom made for Taker. Quality of performance isn't something Taker wins at.

I think that we are confusing success with winning a Championship. When he goes with that company and draws crowds all over the world, we'll call that success.

I guess working massive crowds in Japan isn't success now. Who know?

So Angle's main style isn't that of a technician? Is that what you're saying? I never said that Angle couldn't brawl. Just that the Undertaker was better at it and that this match suits his style better than it does Angle's.

You're talking gimmicks. I'm talking reality. Over the last ten years, I've seen that Angle is every bit the brawl that Taker is because he went out and proved it. Main style means nothing to me as that's gimmick talk. I'm talking straight talk.

Sure he is a top-tier talent in the WWE. He draws money doesn't he?

For about a quarter of the year, sure. What does drawing have to do with a TLC match?

 

[SSJPhenom]

And yet Angle has gotten performances equal to or better than Taker got against all of those guys with the exception of Foley, who Angle didn't get to wrestler until Mrs. Foley's Baby Boy was well over the hill, and Kane, who was custom made for Taker. Quality of performance isn't something Taker wins at.

I'll agree that 'Taker doesn't win when it comes to quality of performance, however, he doesn't disappoint either.

I guess working massive crowds in Japan isn't success now. Who know?

Ah, the good ole Japan argument. I love this argument. It's what's always used to prove that someone who isn't a draw here in the states, actually is a draw, but we just don't know it.

You're talking gimmicks. I'm talking reality. Over the last ten years, I've seen that Angle is every bit the brawl that Taker is because he went out and proved it. Main style means nothing to me as that's gimmick talk. I'm talking straight talk.

You've seen that Angle can brawl, not that he is a better brawler than 'Taker. There's a difference.

It can never be proven that one person is a better brawler than another. Hell, I could say that 'Taker is every bit the submission wrestler that Angle is and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.

For about a quarter of the year, sure. What does drawing have to do with a TLC match?

If we're going to stick to the match and kayfabe discussion then why did you say all of that about you don't care about their gimmicks?

So we can agree that this match suits 'Taker's gimmick more than it does Angle's?