Round 1: Spoodbeest -vs- The Sign Guy

As the home debater, I choose to be on the side that the Casket match is Undertaker's essential gimmick match and that it is better suited for his feuds. The Sign Guy I will let you go first and post your initial opposing statements.

 

So, I've been chosen with the side of the Buried Alive match, and I will prove to the judges that the Buried Alive match is in fact the better Undertaker related match.

From what I take from the topic statement, there are two ways to debate this: Which type of match produces better matches, or which match is related better to The Undertaker. I will take on both sides, but let me state that I believe that the idea of debating which matches are better is purely pointless, as that is pure opinion.

Now, onto the debate. So, which match is better related to The Undertaker? For me, that is easy. It has to be the Buried Alive match. Why, you may ask? Well, it is simple: There has never been a Buried Alive match that has not involved The Undertaker.

There have been numerous casket matches in promotions across North America and the globe. There have been numerous casket matches not to involve Undertaker. As a matter of fact, the first casket match in the history of professional wrestling did not even involve The Undertaker. In the first ever casket match, Dusty Rhodes defeated Ivan Koloff. If you don't believe my word for it, how about you take a crebible source's word?

And if you need anymore proof, here is the link: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/information/casket-match/

And even in WWE, there have been two casket matches that didn't involve The Demon from Death Valley. On the September 23, 1999 edition of Smackdown!, Mideon and Viscera defeated Triple H, and on the October 28, 2002 edition of RAW Kane defeated Triple H. These matches are listed at the link above also. The casket match can be mentioned as one of The Undertaker's specialty matches, but you cannot credit it as "his match", nor can you even say his character can be credited as the one who introduced it to the profesional wrestling world.

Now, onto Buried Alive matches. These types of matches are unique, and are few and far in-between. But, there is one very thing about these matches: Undertaker has been involved in each and every one of these matches. They have not been featured often, only four of them have taken place in history, but all have involved Big Evil. It truly is "his" match, in sense of those words: His character innovated the match, has been involved in each match, he has won a title in one of these matches. This is simply the match I think of when I think of The Undertaker. It has also gone on to do alot in the man's career. Mainly, it reinvented him as The Deadman, after losing to Vince McMahon at Survivor Series 2003. It also helped him win the WWF/E Tag Team Championships. There really isn't much more a match could do to associate a single persona to it.

Many people feel that Buried Alive matches have attributed a lot to The Undertaker's success, and I would have to agree. It added another element to The Undertaker's character, and really added to his Ministry persona. You could also say that if it wasn't for this match, the fued between Taker and McMahon may have ended in a different way, and in effect Undertaker would have never returned to The Deadman persona in 2004, and I feel he has added alot to his legacy since his return to that character.

It is also better suited for ending Taker's fueds. I feel that the Buried Alive match has more of a finality feel to it then the casket match does. Realistically, you are going to have the casket unlocked and you'll be able to get out. In a Buried Alive match, unless they follow the traditional route where you are only covered by a small amount of dirt, then you aren't gonna get out of that grave alive.

I'll also go with different side of the debate, and go with which match is better. I feel that casket matches are usually slow. Buried Alive matches are almost always flowing and moving, while the casket matches move much slower. There is usually a good portion of time used up in casket matches where one man is trying to put the other in the casket, and it just kills whatever flow the match has. In Buried Alive matches, the action moves quicker. There is almost always something happening in these types of matches,and it is usually easier for the wrestlers to toss their opposition in the grave than it is in a casket. There are also usually less attepts at putting someone in the grave then there are at putting someone in a casket, which keeps the match moving better. Finally, Buried Alive matches seem to feature more variety in weapons (shovels, dirt, tombstone, etc...) and are usually more violent. It gives that match another level, and gives even more of a fued-ending match feeling to it. Buried Alive matches are more entertaining that Casket matches.

The way I see it, Buried Alive matches are by far the match type most associated with The Undertaker. Sure, when you think of Casket Matches, you think of Undertaker, but you may also think "What about that casket match Kane and Triple H had" or "What about that casket match TNA had that one time". You don't think of that when it comes to Buried Alive matches. And that's because Taker has been involved in every one. It is the one match you can say that "Taker has been in all of those matches". It is his true match. He basically, in a sense, "owns" that match. You cannot say the same for the casket match. It is his specialty match, and the only match that I will think of and exclusively think of The Undertaker. It is, as SpoodBeest so nicely put it, his "essential" gimmick match and will be forever associated with him. Buried Alive is also much more entertaining and feature better quality than casket matches.

Undertaker always used to talk about "his yard". Welcome to that yard. It's called Buried Alive, and it is The Essential Undertaker related match.

 

Well I will use both points to back up my claim that the Casket Match is more synonymous with The Undertaker. Both including why I think Casket Matches make for better quality match ups as well are more well known with Taker than Buried Alive Matches.

Just because Undertaker has not been involved in every Casket Match in the history of time doesn't mean that takes away the fact that he put this match on the map. This was the gimmick that he made popular. When you think of a perfect way to end a feud with The Undertaker you think of ending it by the Deadman sending his opponents to everlasting darkness inside a treacherous casket.

This casket match may have been the first ever according to some very good sources you showed here, but was it a memorable match? Or was it just showcased in some small little arena randomly during the 1970s? I will go with the fact that during this time wrestling wasn't as popular was it would get during the 80s and that it was a small time promotion putting on this match it is less than memorable.

What you failed to point out in these two examples is the fact that all of the aforementioned wrestlers bar Triple H were related to The Undertaker in terms of story-lines that were going on at the time. Mideon and Viscera were members of The Undertaker's ministry at the time. These two followed the Deadman's ways at the time and were simply brainwashed followers at the time. Also there is no denying that Kane is the wrestler who probably has the closest connection with The Undertaker in terms of story-line. Therefore he has competed in matches like these against Taker himself, and in that one instance tried his "brother's" specialty match against Triple H to perhaps have some what of an advantage in a match he could consider his and The Undertaker's. The only two casket matches that didn't involve Undertaker at least involved other character that were in a supporting cast role of The Deadman's career.

It is his match because he was the one who brought the concept to the WWE. Undertaker was the one who made this type of match mainstream and has competed in this match more than any other wrestler in professional wrestling history. he may not have been credited with creating the match concept, as you obviously got me there with it being created in the 70s, but you cannot deny that fact The Undertaker made the match mainstream and gave it a whole new boost in popularity after it's introduction to the WWE in the early 90s.

The very small amount of these matches has very much made me question it's popularity. The fact that there have only been four of these matches really doesn't shine on how popular it is with Undertaker's character. There have been 19 Casket Matches in WWE history. 17 have featured The Demon of Death Valley and the other two featured wrestler, who through story-line were connected to the Deadman in some way. That for itself should speak on which match is more popular and synonymous with The Undertaker character.

The Casket match is also his match in the sense that if you're not a fan who knows his research from way back when, you think Undertaker also created this concept for himself so he can have the ultimate intimidation factor over his opponents. His character is all about death now while burying is a very well known part of death, what is burying without the casket? The casket is the ultimate symbol of death and it essentially you're eternal resting place. The exact place Undertaker hopes to send his foes when he is done with them and locks them inside those intimidating wood cases. Him losing to Vince could have also have been dealt in a Casket Match and could have ended up with the same great results we seen today. Kane could have still interfered and beat the shit out of Taker. From there on Kane could have locked Taker in the casket and set it on fire. Much like the Ortons did in 2005. The Undertaker would then have still played dead until his ultimate WrestleMania return in 2004. These roles could very well have easily been reversed.

There were no new elements added to Taker's character with the addition of this new match type. It was simply just another match for him to have another advantage too, another match for him to call his own. The addition of the Buried Alive Match was a match meant to become more violent and seemingly more evil as I guess caskets didn't do enough of. Undertaker wanted something more dastardly for his opponents. For the most part it did fine, but this match as I will say once again was never as popular as the Casket Match which to this day remains Undertaker's most notable gimmick match. Also regarding Taker vs. Vince with a different situation read above.

Most certainly not. The only feud a Buried Alive Match ever ended was the Taker/McMahon feud in 2003. Major feuds where Undertaker was involved with ended in Casket Matches. His feuds with the likes of Shawn Michaels, The Rock, Heidenreich, and Mark Henry just name a few, ended with a Casket Match in a big time match feel.

Again this is not totally accurate, I would say that most fans would believe that Undertaker and Casket Matches go together like bread and butter more so than Taker and Buried Alive Matches. Also I am sure the fans will not remember a forgettable Casket Match between Triple H and Kane but if they do remember I'm sure they would think that since Taker and Kane have been so close in terms of story-line for so long that it makes sense for that match to be both of theirs. I am also very sure that no one will recall a random Casket Match that happened between two relative no names in D-Lo Brown and Sonny Siaki back when TNA wasn't even on mainstream television like it is today. It isn't even that popular today, so could you imagine the tiny amount of people that actually seen that indy equivalent to this match? This brings me back to saying once again Undertaker in the eyes of many fans is the king of all caskets.

The fact that The Undertaker has competed in all four Buried Alive Matches is irrelevant because it is going on to be nearly decade since the last time we have seen one of these matches even take place. While the most recent Casket Match took place only two years ago. Undertaker also has a much better winning record in Casket Matches which may also perhaps to be the reason of their popularity with him. Undertaker only ever won a Buried Alive Match once when he Big Show won the tag team titles from The Rock and Mankind. The other three of these matches he lost. While Undertaker has managed to win thirteen Casket Matches out of the seventeen he has been in. Undertaker has clearly been more dominant in this match type, than in Buried Alive Matches.

The yard of popularity still stands with the more vintage match. Casket Matches are Undertaker's match, he is dominant in them, fans know that they are his match, and they usually provide quality entertainment. There is a sense of realism in these matches because he is literally sticking his opponent in a casket. There is nothing believable about burying your opponent that's as phony and unrealistic as it gets. His name is The Undertaker, the king of the Casket Match.

 

No, I don't think of that. I think of Undertaker locking his opposition in a casket only for that very person to appear again on the next show. In any case though, wether or not he put the match on the map is irrelevant. You argued that the casket match is the essential gimmick match of Undertaker's, which is wrong onone major point:

1. It is not originally The Undertaker's match.

I will put this in italics so you can understand it better, and before your next post I want you to ponder this and tell me how it makes since: How can a match that was not originally created for the gimmick, nor innovated by the man playing the gimmick, be the essential gimmick match for said wrestler when there is another match that people know of equally as well that was original for the man's gimmick and innoivated by said wrestler? If you can find a logical answer to that, other than "Undertaker made the match popular", tell me. And I want a reason different than that reason because that reason is irrelevant. It matters in no way that he made the match popular, and it is only associated with him originally because WWE hides the fact that there was a match of its kind before Undertaker introduced. And that fact is still there, wether you like it or not.

It doesn't matter if the original was memorable or for that matter even good, because, read this slowly, it was the original. It doesn't matter if Undertaker brought it mainstream, because he didn't originate it. He originated Buried Alive, which make Buried Alive more relevant to Undertaker.

The only relevance to Undertaker in the Kane vs. Triple H match is the fact that Kane is in storyline Undertaker's half-brother. Yep it ends there. The match was in the midst of the Katie Vick fued, which Undertaker had no part in. The Katie Vick fued was part of kane's World heavyweight Championship chase, a title scene in which Undertaker was not a part of. Undertaker was not even on this show. There is no relevance to Undertaker in this match or the match's story or fued, which brings up my point that Casket matches are not always synonymous with or associated with Undertaker or his storylines. And I feel that Undertaker's essential gimmick match should always revolve around him. Wouldn't you agree? I would. You know what match always has revolved around Undertaker and his storylines? That's right, the Buried Alive match.

To me, it matters not that he brought the match mainstream and made it more popular. To me, a match that is synonymous with a wrestler should always revolve around him and his storylines, should not be used by other superstars with out involvement or connection to the matches originator, should be originated by the wrestler and his gimmick, should not be used by any other wrestlers as theirs before or after that wrestler has debuted the match, should not be used by any other companies unless the wrestler is in that company with a similar gimmick. Guess what match none of that applies to? The casket match. For that matter, Undertaker has used the casket match for two decades without any connection to the orgin of the match. The Buried Alive match basically fits the mold for every criteria it should fit in being original and synonymous with The Undertaker. This in itself makes Buried Alive the more essential gimmick match of Undertaker.

I wopuld reply to this paragraph, but if you read the rest of my replies it echos the sentiments of everything I have already brought up.

I can scream this over and over until the cows com home, bra. The Undertaker did not create the concept. You can blab on what ever you want about research and all that jazz, but it still does not change the cold hard fact that the match is not his character's original concept to begin with.

You counteracted your own point. You say it did nothing to add a new element to his persona, but then you go on to say the match was created to seem more evil and violent. That is the exact dimensions the match added to the character. It made himn seem more evil and violent, enough so where he would bury another man alive.

Fueds with Heidenreich and Mark Henry are not major in any way. This man fueded with Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Psycho Sid, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Steve Austin, Triple H, and more. And you are saying Heidenreich and Mark Henry are major fueds for Undertaker? Really?

Also, the original plans didn't call for heidenreich to end his fued with Taker in a casket match. He was supposed to tesm with Snitsky to take on the reuniting Brothers of Destruction an Wrestlemania 21.

Shawn Michaels and Undertaker fueded again over 2009-2010. That casket match did not permanently end their fued.

The Rock has faced Undertaker in the same amount of Casket matches as he has Buried Alive matches, which is one. And the Buried Alive match took place in September of 1999 where as the Casket match took place in May 1999. Explain to me how the fued ended with a Casket match if they faced each other once again later in the year?

Wrong. If I could do a poll, I would bet money that people think of Buried Alive just as much as they do casket matches when thinking of Undertaker. And an equal amount would say Hell in a Cell.

Okay, so you just counter-debated your entire debate. Your whole point in debating was that the Casket Match was Undertaker's essential gimmick match, and in the part I bolded in the above paragraph you say it makes sense for the match to be both of theirs. Good job destroying everything you have built up in this debate.

I remember this match, so I guess I now equate to nobody? You also remembered it, so that would mean you are aldo nobody, am I right?

The reason it has been so long since we have seen one of these matches is because they are so brutal and violent, they are held rarely. It is also easier to explain someone living through a Casket match than living through Buried Alive, which is why Buried Alive is a much better way to end a fued.

Also, you have once again screwed up your argument. Undertaker one the first ever Buried Alive match against Mankind, but then Mankind was brought out out the grave and along with a debuting Executioner and many forces of heels, attacked Undertaker and buried him in the grave until dirt was flowing over the top of it. You fail.

Casket matches are nowhere near more entertaining. They are less violent, slower paced, can sometimes be extremely boring, and in the end the wrestler put in the casket appears the next Smackdown or RAW, which basically destroys any fued-ending effect the match has.

And, I will point this out again, as you said it once again, it is not The Undertaker's match. It has been used by other superstars, by other companies, was created before Undertaker's time, and is not completely synonymous with Undertaker as the Buried Alive match is.

The point you have been trying to drive home all along is that Casket matches are supposed to be synonymous with Undertaker, moreso than Buried Alive matches. But there is error in that logic, as where the Buried Alive has always centered around Undertaker and his storylines, as well as being originated by him and his gimmick, the casket match has on more than one occasion been used as a match for other fueds not involving Undertaker, have not always been centered around Undertaker, and for that matter were not originally created as a match for The Undertaker as Buried Alive was, just adopted into it. This is why Buried Alive is the better related match to Undertaker than the Casket match, and not the other way around.

 

Usually the opponent is very shaken up and scared about death, and the main symbol of death is a casket. Again you can argue burying is as terrifying but again there is no burying without a casket my friend. After he locks his opponents in that very casket, that's usually where his opposition does not want anything more to do with him again. How can him putting the match on the map be irrelevant? It's his major match that he has won over ten times. it is the match that he made famous and it's his specialty when you think about how much the match has been used over the last decade and beyond. Just because a wrestlers does not create a match, doesn't mean they can't make the match famous and also be credited for his performances during them.

It will be an honor my master.

A match that a wrestler is dominant in and is usually the man to beat in a certain gimmick or stipulation is usually very well know for those type of matches. Also other than that one 70s example that you brought up, from there on WWE brought in the match concept to the mainstream with The Undertaker's character. WWE has always been a mainstream company, nobody really before they debuted the casket match probably weren't even aware of it's existence. WWE brought it in using Undertaker's character. They also have booked him to be dominant in these matches as well. You know similar to Triple H and Hell in A Cell matches. He was not involved in the first one in history but he has been very dominant and has great winning record in these matches. You don't need to be in the first gimmick match of it's kind, but when you do show up and compete and make a name for yourself in them, well then it eventually becomes your essential gimmick match.

Again for a better reply, read the paragraph above. It is most certianly not irrelevant if he made the match popular. Undertaker himself has made this match work for nearly 20 years in the WWE. While the Buried Alive Match has seemingly faded away in the course of what is going to be a decade. Also why would WWE bring up a pointless old match that happened in the 70s? I'm sure it was forgettable and they did the smart thing by packaging this gimmick with their essential character in The Undertaker.

Why doesn't this matter? No one will remember a old casket match that randomly happened in the 70s, in what was probably an old run down and small arena. What fans do remember seeing is The Undertaker debuting this gimmick in the one of the world's most popular companies: the WWE. I will repeat myself again for the sake of it because I like to, so here I go again. A wrestler doesn't not need to be involved in the first gimmick match of it's kind. However Undertaker was the first to compete in one of these bad boys in the mainstream where everyone was able to see it. No matter if they were there live or watching around the world on television. Undertaker's first Casket match is the first in WWE, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Which is enough reason for him to use his brother's match isn't it? Kane was always known as The Undertaker's half brother, even now in the storyline today they're mentioning it. Kane learned a lot from The Undertaker whether it was during the battles of their feuds in the past, or maybe even the time where they were in a tag team together. Kane could perhaps try to use this gimmick in a similar way that Taker used it. Try his brother's specialty and see if it worked out just the same for him.

Not necessarily, if a character related to Undertaker is using the match is fine. Hell I would say if two random wrestlers that were never connected with Taker competed in this match, it would never take away from the fact that Undertaker is the king of this match. He is the one who has won this match the most, and he is the one who brought it to the WWE. He is the one who is the most well known when it comes to Casket Matches. Again back to other wrestlers, Mick Foley was very well known in competing in Hardcore Matches. He was not involved in the first one, nor was he involved in everyone ever. However Mick made a name for himself in those matches and they became his essential gimmick match. Much like The Undertaker and Casket Matches.

Again if I were to repeat myself for the umpteenth time I would be turning blue in the face. Look up and read the above paragraph. It explains that you don't need to debut a match or compete in every one ever for that match type to be the one that is synonymous with you in professional wrestling.

Felt the same with your paragraph before this one, can we get back to debating now?

As can I, you Don't need to be the match's creator for that match to be your most well known gimmick match. Many wrestlers have many gimmick matches that are known as there match, yet they didn't compete in the first which were either before their time or they just didn't compete in the first one. Yet when they competed on those matches consistently and are known for being the kings of these matches, well then those matches are very synonymous with those wrestlers aren't they?

Not really, all he did was think up a different match that he thought would be more devastating. You said the introduction to this match altered his character completely, which it didn't he stayed the same after debuting the Buried Alive concept. He just wanted a different match type to perhaps challenge the Casket Match on the sinister level. Same Undertaker didn't change one bit after this. Therefore this match type did not alter his character in anyway.

Major for the times they were in. I wasn't saying Henry or Heidenreich were anything compared to the above superstars. They were simply in the list of superstars whom The Undertaker finished his feud with in a Casket Match. During the course of The Deadman character's return, hasn't any feud The Undertaker has been involved with major to the audience?

The thing is this never happened. This plan was scrapped and Taker went on to feud with Randy Orton and Mania 21. The fact still remains that his feud with Heidenreich ended in a casket.

That was a different feud the two had. The last time these two man feuded prior to this was in 1998, and it ended once again in a casket. The two would essentially never cross paths until over a decade later

All so true, but the thing is when they competed in a Casket Match it was mano-a-mano. Where as that one Buried Alive match was a tag team title match up with The Big Show and Mankind involved. Not really the same atmosphere don't you think?

All so true again about the Hell in A Cell match, that would be the only thing that is as symbolized with Taker as the Casket Match. Both of which are more popular and well known with The Demon of Deathvalley than the Buried Alive Match. Also Triple H is just as easily recognized for the HIAC as much as Taker.

It could if Kane wanted to try and use the match to his advantage like his brother did. Again even if Kane were to use this match this week or at SummerSlam, he will be using it because it is his brother's specialty. So he thinks it could also benefit him and he can use this match type as an advantage. All of this is irrelevant anyway because Undertaker is way more synonymous with this match than Kane is. Kane's essential gimmick match is the Inferno match, but I would see no problem if Taker used against a foe like Kane used the Casket match. They are both to related in terms of storyline for these not to make sense.

I never once said that, but I guess you can say that in this day and age of WWE programming, we are in a small minority.

If it was anywhere as near as popular we would have seen it regardless. Especially after Taker returned under The Deadman character. Why would he not use his supposed specialty? While he has constantly used the match you are debating against? Seems very strange and funny to me.

Ooopsy, Mankind didn't win that match. Oh well I made a mistake don't we all? That doesn't stop the fact that Mankind got help and with that help destroyed Taker and buried him anyway. This argument still doesn't help Taker's "great" track record in this gimmick match.

The exact same thing can be said about a Buried Alive match. I have not seen one that is of very good quality. What makes it worse is just how phony the Buried Alive Match is, well I guess it adds to the experience. Usually after those wrestler appear on the next RAW or SmackDown they move onto new things and go onto have a different feud. I also think that it is more realistic that they appear during the next television taping because they were only just locked in a casket. As opposed to selling the fact that they "died" which basically every time was Taker selling the affects of this match anyway, go figure.

It is his match because his name is usually the name that is brought up when others think about. He put the match on the map and was the one made Casket Matches his playing grounds. I have already compared this factor with other wrestlers and other gimmick matches if you were actually reading all of this.

There is no error at all. Undertaker has made the Casket Match work for what is nearing two decades. While the Buried Alive Match has been seemingly dead and gone for a good eight years or so. You claim that when others have used this match in the WWE it takes away from Taker's prestige in this match. This is very wrong however, as members of his ministry used this match in there favor once, and Kane who is Taker's story-line half brother. The man that could have learned everything from Undertaker used the match once, for the same advantage factor it gave his brother. Not once in WWE have they had two wrestlers who had nothing ever to do with Taker compete in this match. Unlike the two other times this match happened outside the WWE, but again those are very irrelevant because we are talking strictly WWE and The Deadman.

 

This argument makes no sense. The Buried Alive Match has no connection to a Casket match, and a casket has never been used in a Buried Alive match.

Yeah, I'm assuming that after Undertaker buries some one in a grave, not only are they not going to want to fued with him anymore, they're going to be unable to. Because, you know, there dead. it is the ultimate fued ending match for the Undertaker. You seem to think because there have been more casket matches in history and more fueds have ended in them, that makes it the better match to end fueds. It doesn't. It just means that WWE has used them wrong. Certain matches are just better for ending fueds, and a match where you bury some one under dirt so is better to end a fued with someone as opposed to locking them in a casket. I'm sure either way you're gonna scare your opposition, but the Buried Alive puts more finality into it.

You don't get it, do though. I'm not arguing that the Undertaker brought the match to the mainstream. I'm not arguing that he made it popular. He did. And when I think of Casket matches I automatically think of Undertaker. And I bet everyone reading this is saying "he just basically lost himself this debate." But you all are wrong.

You know, Shawn Michaels brought the ladder match to the mainstream. He made it popular. He is one of the most renowned performers to ever wrestle in the match type. And when I think of ladder matches, I think firstly of Shawn Michaels.

But would I say that the ladder match is his essential gimmick match? No, I wouldn't. I don't feel the ladder match is an essential gimmick match for anyone, but that is for a different day.

My point in case being, being associated with a gimmick match and it being the essential match of your gimmick means to different things. Example being Triple H and Hell in a Cell. He is associated with the match, but it is not completely "his" match. To be your match, it has to be your original creation, it should always revolve around you or have some kind of connection to you. The Casket match may be associated with Taker, but the fact is it hasn't always been connected to him or revolved around him. It has about 95% of the time, but it hasn't always. Wether most fans remember wether it has or not is irrelevant. This debate is between you and me, and both you and I know the facts. Casket matches have not always been centered with Taker. Point in case, Kane vs. Triple H. D-Lo Brown vs. Sonny Siaki. Dusty Rhodes vs. Ivan Koloff.

Buried Alive has always been centered around Taker. It is hard to figure out, it isn't hard to realize. Both matches are associated with The Undertaker and his gimmick, but only one match up to this point in time has in every way always revolved around Undertaker, and that is Buried Alive. Which is why it is "his" match, and the Casket match is not.

Being dominant and hard to beat in said match type means nothing whatsoever. Most fans, and you've brought this up in this debate yourself, see The Inferno Match as Kane's specialty match. You know what his record is in those? 1-3. I don't see you going on a tangent about how Inferno matches shouldn't be Kane's essential gimmick match because he isn't strong in him.

Yet, a main base of your argument is that Undertaker isn't as strong in Buried Alive matches as Casket matches, so Casket matches should be even furthermore associated with them. You once again have counteracted yourself in your statements, and make every point in your debating where you say Undertaker not being as strong in Buried Alive as he is in Casket matches irrelevant. Which they are. That is a load of crap argument, as it doesn't matter how strong you are, just if it is associated with the match.

I think I addressed this earlier in explaining to you the differences of being associated with a match, as Undertaker is with Casket, and a match essentially belonging to your gimmick, as Undertaker is with Buried Alive.

Being associated with a match means most people think of you and your performances within the match, and you may easily come to mind when people think of the match, but the match has not always revolved around you and your gimmick, and it is not your original creation. Point in case, The Undertaker in Casket Matches.

A match being essentially yours means that you created the match you have always competed or been connected to the match, It revovles around you, always have, always will. Point in case, Buried Alive and The Undertaker.

You see, all I have to do is find one point in time where the Casket Match was just used as something commonplace like a Stretcher Match as a part of a fued, because The Buried Alive has never been used in that capacity. Kane and Triple H competed in the Casket Match on a RAW in a fued that had no relevance The Undertaker, yet used "his" match. So, honestly, it isn't his match anymore, is it? After that match, I view it as something that doesn't need to involve Taker, but something that can just be used in any old fued as a specialty match. I have never viewed Buried Alive that way, which makes Buried Alive The Undertaker's match.

I'm not arguing that they didn't do a smart thing. It was extremely smart. It has become a huge marketing point. But that doesn't take away from that one cold, hard fact. A fact that may not be mainstream or popular, but something that we both know that makes a big difference in determining wether it is Taker's essential match or not: It isn't Undertaker's match.

Undertaker may have brought it mainstream, but it isn't his. It wasn't his before he debuted it, and there have been times after he debuted it where it wasn't his. You even said in your last two posts that it makes sense that it could be used as Kane's match too. I don't care if Kane is his storyline brother, it is still supposed to be Undertaker's match. Kane has the inferno match. And the fact that he used the casket match and you said it made sense for it to be used as his match too, shows that the casket match doesn't belong to The Undertaker as his gimmick match in any way. he may be foreever associated with it, but it isn't his. Not only is he associated with Buried Alive, it has always been his and no one else's, which makes it his match more than the Casket match.

I don't really give a rat's rear end if it is popular between fans or not. Most fans aren't even educated on half of the business. This debated is between us, and what we feel is the most relevant match to The Undertaker. And that match is Buried Alive, and I am stating every reason in the book why it is.

Yes, he could try it. He did try it. That means that the match is not exclusively Undertaker's anymore. I hammered that point home above, and I don't feel he need to elaborate on it anymore.

Undertaker is King of this match. Shawn Michaels is King of the ladder match. But that doesn't make the ladder match Shawn's match, as it hasn't always revolved around Shawn, and the same goes for Undertaker and the Casket match. Casket matches haven't always revolved around Undertaker. It is that simple.

I would disagree. I can think of a handful of matches that belong to different gimmicks/wrestlers alone, and all of them have wrestled in every single match, including the debut, or the match at the least revolved around that character.

Yes they are. But if the match hasn't always revolved around them than it can't truly be regarded as "their" match, can it? They are just associated with it.

I never once said this. Find where I said it and I will admit I did it.

I'm not going to argue he changed. I'm just saying it added another demention of evil into the persona. Which it did. It added that level to him where he is past the point where he just locks you in a casket. He'll now bury you alive. It may not be very noticable, but it is a small element that is there.

Point made.

But the idea wasn't to end the match in a Casket. The only reason that match ended with the Casket match is because it was booked at the time and the fued had to come to an end early. That's just one more fued that was not originally supposed to end with a Casket Match, even furthermore taking the fued-ending effect of this match away.

Yes, but the point of ending a fued is so that the two will never cross paths again. This is what you argue the casket match should do. You even said that a casket match is the point where a wrestler should never want anything to do with Undertaker again. You said it right here:

Yet Michaels came back and wanted something to do again. The Casket match here-in failed in what you argue it is supposed to do.

The only thing you argued is that the Casket match ended the fued between Undertaker and Rock. Yet four months after that Casket match, The Rock and Undertaker were still fueding, via tag team action, and competed in a Buried Alive match, via tag team action. They were still fueding after there so-called fued ending match: care to explain?

I'm sure plenty of fans think of Undertaker more when it comes to Buried Alive than Hell in a Cell, because Hell in a Cell has been just as associated with Mick Foley and Triple H than it has with Undertaker. And once again, it comes down to the point where fans may associate Casket matches just as much, or maybe even more, with Undertaker than they do Buried Alive. But the fact remains Undertaker has not always been associated with Casket matches, where as he always has been associated with Buried Alive.

Yes, Undertaker is more synonymous with the Casket Match, but the point has been made where Undertaker has not been associated with casket matches, where he has always been associated with Buried Alive. And if you are associated with one match more than the other, the match that you are more-so associated with is the one that is "your match".

Off topic. But I'll agree for the sake of it.

Maybe because Casket matches are easier to set up. Maybe because they cost less. Maybe because for the past two-three years we have been in a kid and family friendly programming era where burying someone alive may be considered to extreme? I don't know, I'm just guessing?

The argument about records in a match means nothing, as I have already stated. Being buried after the match has no relevance on his record as he won the match to begin with, 1-on-1. And the whole argument you made in that paragraph is irrelevant to the topic anyway.

Austin/Undertaker and Mankind/Undertaker were good quality. McMahon and Undertaker was entertaining for what it was and served it's purpose in the long run.

And the entire fact superstars that lose Casket Matches appear again on the next show takes away from the finality and fued-ending impact that the match is supposed to have. You cna argue about realism til' the cows come home, but this is professional wrestling, which is scripted and all about suspending belief, so I honestly don't care how realistic something is.

And people don't think about Undertaker's name when Buried Alive is brought up. This is irrelevant, as people are going to think about Undertaker when both of these matches are brought up. This boils it down to the point that the match that is the essential gimmick match for Undertaker is the one that has always been centered around him, which is Buried Alive, not the casket match.

You can keep this little charade up. Debate all you want, but Buried Alive wins this every time. I have this one cold, hard, fact that you cannot out debate, yet you keep trying with stuff that is either wrong, irrelevant, or off-topic, sometimes a combination.

There remains the one fact though. Buried Alive and Casket match alike, people will always think of taker when it is brought up. So it comes down to purely Undertaker only being associated with one match, and him essentially owning the other.

Undertaker will forever be associated with the Casket match, but it is not his match. He has not always been involved nor connected to it, and it has been chaeapened by others using it.

Buried Alive was innovated ny The Deadman. There has not been a single time in history where Buried Alive was not associated with Undertaker. It has always revolved around him and gis storylines and featured him. The casket match has not. Albeit few, there have been times where the casket match did not even remotley deature The Deaman.

I have attacked from every angle, adjusted my debate each time in doing show, and have proved this one single point each and every time. Buried Alive is more related to Undertaker than the casket match, is better for ending fueds, and is a better match overall.

 

I was basically just pointing out the fact that caskets are essentially the symbol of death. They are you're eternal resting place when you're five feet under. That is why they go best with the Deadman's gimmick because they are so very related to what his character is all about.

Which is why they are as phony as they are. This guy who was ultimately buried alive returns a mere few months later? It's pretty dumb and very unrealistic but we will save my reasons why for later.

Well you basically agreed with what I have been trying to get through in this debate for my last two posts.

As do I good sir, as I do I.

Very strange if you say no to that. HBK is the most certainly the most recognized Ladder Match participant of all time.

So you're saying that through story-line Undertaker did not create the Casket Match? Well that is wrong too because it was his character that debuted the match to begin with. The Casket Match does revolve around Undertaker and his character completely because it is a death themed match. Which perfectly fits a wrestler who has an undead gimmick. All of the above said statements are perfect reasons as to why the Casket Match has a perfect connection to The Undertaker.

The Casket Match is simply the most well known gimmick match Undertaker has ever competed in period, it's more than just a match that people associate with him. He has always been connected with Casket Matches throughout a good portion of his career, but your point is hasn't always been involved with them. While this is true they still have zero relevance to this debate. Also if we are talking strictly WWE I would bump up that percentage to about 98% because since the Casket Match has been used in WWE, Taker has only been exempt from two of them during the gimmick's entire history of being in the company. Let's not start counting ones from other promotions now.

I have already backed up Kane using the Casket Match a trillion times. It makes sense due to the relationship his character has had with Taker's character. How many time do I have repeat myself and the other Casket Match was competed by his Ministry followers. All characters close to The Undertaker are the only ones who have used this match in the WWE.

Then you also bring up the other two that were competed in two different promotions. Your first one being the first alleged Casket Match. It's practically speculation from what your source has shown me. It may not even have ever happened. It is basically a hypothesis from some wrestling historians that this match may have taken place back in the 1970s. So your source isn't exactly as reliable as you may think. For all we know The Undertaker could have been the first to use and establish this match in all of mainstream wrestling.

Your other example being D-Lo Brown vs. Sonny Siaki back when TNA was as close to indy wrestling as it gets. Nobody bar maybe some TNA die hards will remember that this match even happened. Also I am willing to bet that if it was not for The Undertaker this match would not have even happened that one time in TNA. Also if it was not for Taker the other two random Casket Matches that featured the Deadman's supporting cast would not have happened either.

Very arguable point. If the WWE actually used the gimmick more often than they did I could have easily seen Mankind and Kane using the Buried Alive Match against their opponents. Of course history has shown us that this factor did not happen but I'm here to say that it very well could have. If this gimmick caught on I could have seen it being used as rapidly as the Casket Match but it didn't so in the end it's not as recognized.

How does it mean nothing? It helps give the wrestler that "edge" or "advantage" when game time rolls around. I only used Kane's gimmick match as a mere example of a match Taker could have easily used if he wanted too. I also used it because what other gimmick matches is Kane known for? Not a whole lot. I could argue the same thing for Kane but that wasn't the part of the argument about the Inferno Match I was trying to make.

It's a perfect argument. When a wrestler is as dominant as they are in a certain match, that makes it their "yard". So that when the two opposing forces go into battle the match heavily favors the contestant who's yard they are about to step in. Hence why when bringing up Taker in Buried Alive matches and Kane in Inferno Matches they are weaker in comparison to Taker in Casket Matches because of Undertaker's very impressive track record he in these matches. He put them on the map, he made them famous, and his character could have actually been the one to debut the concept based on your flawed source of the "first" Casket Match. The Casket Match is simply the better playing grounds Undertaker has stepped foot in.

So we can only associate caskets with Taker's gimmick but when it comes to burying someone that essentially belongs to his gimmick? Where is the sense in this?

That just furthers the point of been trying to make kind of. Undertaker is a little more than "associated" when it comes to competing in Casket Matches. To many people including myself we believe it is his match, who really cares if there may have been two Casket matches that Taker didn't compete in. No one does, because it truly doesn't matter because Undertaker may have actually been the one to debut the concept as I have stated before and not only that but when he challenges someone to this match they know that they are most certainly in for a long night.

Undertaker in terms of story-line did create the Casket Match, how many times have I repeated that thus far? Other than a whole two times in WWE has Undertaker not competed in a Casket Match and when he wasn't in it others who had story-line relations to him did.

The thing is though a Casket Match is more rare than a simple Stretcher Match or Cage Match. It is a match that was created in the WWE by The Undertaker who has used it against various opponents a whole nineteen times and has won thirteen of them.

Undertaker also did create the Buried Alive Match in story-line. He has also lost as much as he has won this match, and even on one instance where he won he ended up getting Buried Alive anyway. This is not the greatest track record for a match that is supposed to be where you thrive. This is something that cannot be said about Undertaker in Casket Matches. As Taker has proved to have very strong showings in these matches and in the end usually pulls out the victory.

So it was a great and smart rthing to debut this match with The Undertaker character, and it became a huge way of marketing a lot of his pay-per-view matches and is a very mainstream and popular match with WWE fans but that doesn't make the match essential to The Undertaker in terms of his career? Please try again.

It is his in terms of WWE (the most popular wrestling promotion on the planet) The Undertaker debuted the match to use against his enemies and strike fear into their hearts. This was so he could have a clear cut advantage over them.

So are you implying that Kane being Undertaker's story-line half brother is now irrelevant to this entire debate? Just so I know for next time.

A match which Undertaker has beaten him in and you know it's Kane's supposed gimmick match.

I said it was logical why Kane could use it because of his relations to The Undertaker. Think about this way if Taker wasn't around or didn't debut this match type do think Kane would have still used it? It's just a thing called common sense Sign Guy.

As I have said multiple times, the match is way more than just "associated" with him. It is the gimmick match that people remember the most if they are a fan of The Undertaker or simply know of him. That is enough of a reason to show that clearly Casket Matches have way more relevance than Buried Alive matches.

Since when did this fact become not acceptable to use in a debate?

I have also been hammering the point that it has only been characters related to Taker who have used his match to benefit themselves. No one else has why is that so difficult for you to understand.

If they are the kings of a certain match and everyone refers to those matches as "their" match then wouldn't you think my point has been proven all along?

I would love you to share these with me because i really am dying to know.

Undertaker is more than just "associated" with Casket Matches. I have nailed this point as much as my littler heart has been able too. Taker is known as the king of all Caskets. He was the one who debuted the concept as that match in 70s is all speculation and he has a fantastic track record in these matches. The general casual fans recognize it as his match. Therefore the Casket Match is better suited for Undertaker and his feuds.

Right here mac:

You didn't quite say altered but you did say added another layer to his persona, which is something I still disagree with.

The evil was always there, it just took him some time to think up something that could really be as "dastardly" as the Buried Alive Match is portrayed.

I know I make a lot of them

It is still irrelevant because thats not how history played itself out. The tag team match did not happen and Taker went onto feud with Orton. The fact still remains that he ended business with Heidenreich in a casket.

That is not the truth at all. In fact many feuds have stopped for a while and then randomly happened again for some reason. Look at Triple H vs. Randy Orton they feuded for sometime in 2004 it ended then happened again in 2009. I'm sure if I felt like looking up some more examples I could easily find some.

Shawn Michaels wanted nothing more from Taker than to just end his precious WrestleMania streak. Their eventual final feud between eachother had nothing to do with what happened between the two of them a decade prior.

The tag team feud was still a different feud. it was not the same singles feud Taker and Rock had going on earlier in the year when they competed in Casket Match during a heated feud that didn't involve others. The only thing that may make that Buried Alive Match more memorable was the fact that the tag team titles were on the line.

Doesn't this help my argument? Hell in a Cell matches are generally very popular matches. If Taker is being put in the same league as Triple H and Mick Foley for his performances and overall dominance in HIAC matches, then wouldn't that overshadow anything he may have done in Buried Alive matches where he wasn't so dominant?

Which is the point I have been hitting a a home run with for the past few posts.

Again in WWE story-lines Taker did create the Casket Match as well as the Buried Alive Match. The fact that he didn't compete in a mere two of them doesn't take anything away from how popular he has made this match and how well known he is for competing in them.

Again, I just have to tell you read whatever i have typed above this.

Not really, it is related to the subject at hand.

The they definitely should have thought of this stuff beforehand. Perhaps these matches could be too expensive and difficult to set up for. In my mind they aren't really worth it anyway because they truly are a bogus concept. Also yes and since Casket Matches are only about stuffing your opponent in a casket we will continue to see them. As their legacy grow, the Buried Alive legacy will continue to be overshadowed to the point where only wrestling historians will remember them.

I have stated that having a good record in a gimmick match that makes you the clearly obvious favorite going into the match is a good thing. It also gives the audience and idea of who to expect to win and makes them believe that certain wrestlers are untouchable in certain matches. For which The Undertaker has made this very real when it comes to competing in Casket Matches.

All in a matter of opinion my good man, all in a matter of opinion.

So as you said later on in your post that you want your realism to be suspended. So you want it to be suspended to the point where you believe resurrections happen in professional wrestling? That is over the top and ridiculous , I would really rather watch Taker stuff a wrestler in casket and then see that same wrestler a few days later because nothing really bad happened to them. So you believe they will be back on the next edition of the show. While a Buried Alive match which usually has always ended with Taker's ultimate demise whether he has won the match or not, ends up with someone ultimately dying from being buried. However Undertaker or whomever else has fallen victim to this rise from the "dead" mere weeks or months later. Wow got to love how much your realism is suspended with these matches.

Fair enough, but I will go on the record to say that most fans will probably remember Casket Matches when Undertaker and his specialties are brought up more so than Buried Alive Matches. So your statement here is very gutsy because it's evident that the most popular gimmick match Taker has ever competed in has obviously been the Casket Match.

All have my facts I have given out are completely relevant with our topic. They are usually great points too but you always seem to duck, brand them as irrelevant or just flat out ignore. It's quite a clever thing to do really.

When you win a match more, clearly show your more more dominant in that match and you basically really created for these factors, well then I would say it's your essential gimmick match. Which as I have proven post after post is the Casket Match.

Read plenty of the above paragraphs that turn this entire statement around on you.

This is the only positive to your argument that I have been able to turn around on several occasions. The Deadman debuted the Casket Match. He has only never competed in two casket matches in all of WWE history and in those two were Undertaker related characters competing. And finally he has an impressive track record in these matches to wow the fans. The Casket Match is simply the more "over" Undertaker gimmick match. Popularity is everything in wrestling you know?

I would love to read and reply to yet another rebuttal, so please keep this going I'm having tons of fun and I have all the time in the world this week.

 

It's six foot under. And to say the casket is more associated with death than the grave is would be a huge mis-statement.

You do realize the grave does not have to be overfilling with dirt to win, right? You only have to be covered to the point where you can't be seen. It is how Undertaker won the first won. My point in being here, is you can go the other route and basically destroy them in dirt if you want to kill off the character, or you could go the original stip and just bury them to where they can't be seen, and give them about a month off TV saying that they sustained injuries from being buried under the dirt from the time where they are buried to when they are gotten out. There are different ways to end the match, and one that seems more realistic. Do me a favor, and do research on the match you are debating against before posting ignorantly about it.

All in proving my point that you have been wrong so far.

So we agree on something? Nice.

Yes, he is. But you can't call it his match, as it has nopt always revolved around him.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear before I go on any further. We are debating on which match, in essence, "belongs" to The Undertaker more. The thing that you aren't understanding, is that I am debating that for a match to belong to someone it must always revolve around him. It always must be connected to him. This is my main point and focus. Understand it.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: storyline does not matter. In the actual business, yes, storyline means everything. But in this debate, we know beyond storyline, and all that matters is what we know. Storyline has no effect on me when I am debating this.

And everything you said about the Casket match also applies to the Buried Alive match. And where-as every Casket match has not had a storyline revovling around the Undertaker, Buried Alive had. Which continuously drives home my point that Buried Alive is more Taker's than the Casket match is.

How in thy hell is it not relevant to the debate. Him not always being involved with them through match or storyline is extremely relevant to the debate, as the point of the debate is which match is more relevant to Undertaker. And if Undertaker has not always been connected with or involved in Casket matches where he has always been with Buried Alive, how does this make the Casket match his match more-so than Buried Alive.

I don't really care how many people associate Casket matches with Undertaker, because I can associate Undertaker with Buried Alive more-so than the casket match. And as long as I can do that, I will win this debate, as that is all that matters in this debate.

I can count other promotions if I feel the need to. Not counting TNA's, there still was one from another promotion before Undertaker ever introduced the match through his gimmick. And wether or not most fans know about it, we do, which is all that matters in this debate. And it also gives me more fuel to the fire proving my point that it is not Undertaker's match, because it was created before Taker was even wrestling. You can say what you want about it not being relevant, about it not counting as it was a different promotion, but it doesn't matter. The match was used before Undertaker ever introduced it, which basically proves my main debating point that it can't be his match.

I

I get what you are saying about Kane being related to Undertaker, but it still doesn't take away that the match you are arguing belongs to Undertaker was used by someone else. You can argue that it makes sense for Kane to use it, which it doesn't, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Kane still used The Undertaker's match. If I wanted to use my brother's basketball, and it made sense to do it because it is laying right in front of me, and I go ahead and take it, it still doesn't take away from the fact that I took his basketball. The same applies to what Kane and to an extent Mideon and Viscera (even though I can more-so understand Mideo and Viscera) did to Undertaker's supposed #1 match, yet no one has done this to Buried Alive. Odd, isn't it?

I posted one source. You search the internet and I'm sure you'll find more sources stating my fact. I just posted one source because I didn't want to waste time finding another.

Okay, we can forget this match if you really want to, it isn't even that important to my arguement anyway.

Moot point, never happened, and nothing says that this was ever planned to happen.

It did catch on. If it didn't catch on, it wouldn't have been used more than once. The XFL didn't catch on. It was cancelled after one season. Buried Alive caught on. It was used more than once. Simple logic. I explained reasons in my last post why Buried Alive isn't used as often as the Casket match.

Kane is always built up as having the advantage in the Inferno match even though his record in them is 1-3. It isn't the record that gives you the advantage, it is the mind games the gimmick of the match imposes that gives the wrestler the advantage. It is the whole reason gimmick matches are created. Record doesn't matter, it doesn't give you any secret advantage. Mind games do.

And before you even start on me about how the Casket match does play mind games with his opponets, I will freely admit that it does. But the Buried Alive match does just as equally. You cannot honestly tell me a match where you will be locked in a casket plays any less than equal mind games than a match where you could be buried under dirt while alive and be seriously injured from suffocating in the dirt and possibily even killed. The mid games are equal in both matches.

Once again, a winning record in a match does not give you some secret advantage. Mind games do. Also, my source was not flawed in any way. This is a moot point.

There is alot of sense in this. We can only associate casket matches with Undertaker because he has not always been involved in one way or another with the match. You can also associate Kane with the Caset match in this sense. And don't start with me about how the fans don't remember the match, because we do remember the match, and what we remember or know is all that matters in this debate. Not what the majority of fans do. And where you can't associate Undertaker with every casket match in history, you can do this with Buried Alive.

I care, and that is all that matters, because I am the one debating this point, and as long as I can point it out, it shows the in-consistency you have, and I win.

You see, it doesn't matter if he is the most associated superstar with casket matches. All that matters is, when push comes to shove, he hasn't been associated with every one, where as he has been with Buried Alive. That associates him more with Buried Alive, gives him ore relevance to Buried Alive, and therefore proves I am right.

Yeah, they're in for a long night facing Undertaker in a Buried Alive match. Actually, it'll be tougher for them, as Buried Alive has historically proved to be more violent.

Stop with the storyline relation point. I have dispelled that point over and over again.

Also, I mentioned before that this isn't a WWE kayfabe, in-storyline debate. It doesn't matter what happens in storyline, because we know the truth, what happened outside of storyline. And what happened outside of storyline furthermore proves my point.

The Casket match is no more special than a strecher match or a cgae match when removed from it's, in this case, supposed originator and owner, and given to a fued that has no correlation to said wrestler.

He also introduced the concept to the whole of professional wrestling. He may have introduced the Casket match to the mainstream, but he did not introduce it to wrestling as a whole, as he did with Buried Alive.

He was outnumbered the time he was Buried Alive after he beat mankind. Do your research. Undertaker was outnumbered by a force of heel about 15/20-1 when he was buried after that match. Oh yeah, and both times he lost in Buried Alive matches it can be attributed to outside interference. Once again, do your research.

This debate is not about which match Undertaker thrives in the most, it is about which match is better related to him. This is an invalid point. You don't have to be good in a match for it to be realated to you, end of story.

Once again, Undertaker has looked strong in every Buried Alive match, and was only beaten through means of outside interference. That doesn't make him weak, it just proves a point that is a fact in life: there is strength in numbers.

Once again, this debate isn't about wether or not the match is essential to Undertaker in his career. If we were debating that, Casket match would win because it has attributed more success to Taker in his career. But that is not what we are debating. We are debating the point of which match is more relevant and related to Undertaker, which has nothing to do with his career success. And seeing as how Undertaker has been involved or connected to Buried Alive more-so than Casket matches, Buried Alive is more related to The Deadman.

The same applies to Buried Alive, and the only difference is that since this debate isn't restricted to WWE or kayfabe, I can look back and say that Undertaker didn't introduce Casket matches to professional wrestling where as he did introduce Buried Alive to professional wrestling. Buried Alive in that sense alone is more Undertaker's match than the Casket match, which is my point.

Pretty much. You introduced Kane into this debate yourself, saying that is is your opinion that it makes sense for him to use Taker's match. This debate's topic isn't about Kane, and has nothing to do with Kane. Kane doesn't matter to this debate.

You just argued that Undertaker defeating Kane is Kane's
gimmick match is relevant in a debate about which match is better related to Undertaker. Think about how that makes no sense whatsoever and get back to me.

No, but if Taker had never debuted the match then it wouldn't be his match type in the first place. You have a bad habit of using your arguments against you, don't ya?

Once again it doesn't matter which match has more relevance, that is clearly Casket matches. The point of this debate is which match is better related to The Undertaker, which is Buried Alive.

The fact is acceptable to use in a debate, and I have been using it to my advantage. It states nowhere that this debate has to be in kayfabe, so I'm not going to treat it like it is.

It doesn't matter if the character's are related to Taker. All that matters is the storyline/fued in the match (Kane vs. Triple H) had no relevance to Undertaker, and was not connected to Undertaker. And Sonny Siaki, Dusty Rhodes, D-Lo Brown, and Ivan Koloff are not related to Taker.

No, because it truly isn't their match. Punjabi Prison is The Great Khali's match, Boiler Room Brawl is Mankind's match, Inferno matches belong to Kane, Buried Alive belong to Undertaker. All of these match types have always revolved around the matches founder and have always been connected to them. The Casket match hasn't always been connected or related to Undertaker, therefore it can't be his match.

Punjabi Prison/Khali, Boiler Room Brawl/Mankind, Inferno/Kane, etc...

But yet, he has not always been connected with the match. You and evrybody else and their mother's can view Undertaker and Casket matches however you want, yet that does not take away from the simple fact that he has not always been connected to those matches. He has always been connected to Buried Alive.

The point I am debating here is that the match that you are connected to more is the match that essentially belongs and is related to you more. It is simple logic.

Yes, and you said that I said that it completely altered his character completely. I did not say that, and you proved it yourself. Your empty accusations failed.

Yes, but that layer of evil was untapped. Once that match was created, that evil was tapped into and added into his persona.

Too bad you actually don't.

Does it really matter how history played itself out, as long as we know that's how it wasn't supposed to.

The point I am getting at is that the WWE does not value the Casket match as a fued-ending match as much as you believe, and it only ended the fued here because the match was already booked this way and the fued had to end prematurely.

Yes, but even though the fued ended for a poeriod of time, they either had unfinished business or they wanted more of each other.

The only thing here is that you argued originally that the Casket match was to make Michaels not want Taker any more. If the casket match was as good of a fued ender as you say it is, then Michaels wouldn't have tried to challenge the streak for fear that he could eventually be put in a Casket match with The Undertaker again.

But they are still fueding with each other, is my point. Make up your mind man, because either a fued is going to end and wrestlers are not going to fued again under any circumstanes, or the fued is going to take a rest period yet be reignited again, under different circumstances at a different time. The latter happened here, so the casket match did not end any bad blood the two men had with each other.

You missed my entire point. I argued that people relate Undertaker with Buried Alive more than Hell in a Cell because Hell in a Cell is associated with Triple H as much, if not more than Undertaker.

Wait for it...

The debate is not about how well known Undertaker is in a match, nor about how popular he made it in mainstream. It is how which match he is better related to, and seeing is how he wasn't connected in any storyline or fued way to two Casket Matches, proves my point that he is better related to Buried Alive where he has always been related to the match.

I can't say anything more for this than I already have said in this post. Read above.

It matters none. The better man will win, and a winning record gives you no advantage.

Undertaker is not untouchable in casket matches. he has been beaten in them before.

Then why'd you try to debate it with me?

Spoiler

Once again, not about which match is more popular. It's about which match he is more related to.

And by related to, I don't mean related to by fans. I mean which match is he in history of said match more related to. Which is where Buried Alive whens.

Some are irrelevant. Some are wrong. Some are poorly researched. Some are good. Few are great. Most are wrong.

Being dominant in this match has nothing to do with the points I'm debating, which again is which match is The Undertaker better related to.

They don't, but nice attempt.

It's everything in wrestling, but not in this debate. There is one point in this debate, and that is which match is better related to Undertaker. I view "better related" as in which match history is he better related to said match in terms of storylines, fueds, debuts, and physical invovlement. Buried Alive wins in all those categories, so I win.

All I have to do is football, but you'd still be better suited in packing up your ball and preparing for next week. You are totally missing the point in my debate against you, and I am winning in it.

 

Well I guess that's a plus for Buried Alive Matches since they have a grave decorated by the hole.

No need to get all mad, this is a friendly debate after all isn't it? Sure they have ended it that way a few times, which really couldn't have been much because there have been only four of these matches ever. Also I thought you didn't want to use kayfabe in this debate, yet you are defending the after affects of Buried Alive matches, which is kayfabe after all isn't it?

As I have said it doesn't need to be revolved around him. He has competed in this match more than any other wrestler ever. At a total of nineteen times has The Undertaker competed inside a Casket Match. Thirteen of which he has won, and this is the match type that has been used since the return on his ever so popular Deadman character. Since the return of that character, the casket matches have practically been booked as his absolute specialty. I am sure that this is enough to call Casket Matches his match type.

For the most part the Casket Match has, just because on a very rare occurrence where other Undertaker related characters have used it. Which only does equate to a whole two times in WWE, it has only been The Undertaker using this match type. Also since the return of the Deadman character in 2004 guess who is the only wrestler to compete in Casket matches against his opposition? That's right, The Undertaker.

So why is it so bad for me to use to back up my arguments? This is a debate between two smart fans and if I feel the need to use kayfabe to support my points, I will do so. For example, you do know it wasn't Taker himself who thought up either of these matches. No, it was the damn writing team that cooked up these gimmick to feed The Undertaker character.

If it were as important to the character I am sure we would have seen at least once under the Deadman's character after it's return in 2004. it was only a year before the previous one he had against Vince and that's when he was "Big Evil" the biker, so if that Taker used it why wouldn't the presumably more fitting character use this gimmick after it's return.

A speculated match does not even highly convince me that WWE wasn't the first to come up with the casket concept. And the others that happened would have never took place if it was not for The Undertaker. Let me repeat myself no Undertaker would have meant no Casket Matches regardless.

The fans matter in this debate as much as my other points. The match has been over with the audience and Taker's character for what is going on to be two decades. Fan support as well as relevance with the fans is a big part of my side of this debate. Stop shrugging it.

If you can count the speculated 1970s alleged Casket Match as well as the one random one that happened in TNA. Then I can very well use the WWE audience and it's support of these matches in my defense. Which is something I have been laying on the table for a long time now. You go for the simple fact that Taker has been in all of these matches when they happened as your side of the argument. While I back up the fact that Undertaker has made the Casket Match his most popular gimmick match in WWE and has gotten the match very over with the crowd and it for the most part was used a lot during his feuds since the return of The Deadman character post-2004.

Well we will never get to know this since basically the concept has been retired for a long time now. While Casket matches were used aa lot over the last decade. No matter if it were related characters to Taker which Mideon, Viscera, and Kane are, or just Taker using it against various opponents. The match has been used, it has ended plenty of Undertaker's feuds. While the Buried Alive Match, for the lack of a better term: bit the dust in 2003.

Again we will never know how WWE planned to use Buried Alive. It has been gone for years so essentially we will never know who would compete in it or how WWE would use it after 2003.

It isn't used at all. If a match has not been used for the time that the Buried Alive Match has been gone then most likely we will never see it again. We never once have seen it since the return of The Deadman character, while we have seen plenty of Casket Matches during that time and beyond.

Undertaker and Kane are the quote on quote masters of the mind games. Both play mind games before regular matches or even before average joe pay-per-view matches. They do it all the time regardless of which match stipulation they are about to compete in.

It is for sure more intimidating. I never once argued and said being locked in a casket was more terrifying than being buried alive. That would be foolish on my part to say. In a kayfabe sense that match may be the most dangerous of all time in terms of how you win. My main point is it isn't around anymore and hasn't been used by The Undertaker since before he became The Deadman again. Also you would truly think that after this gimmick came back he would have at least used his "essential" match once.

Not really it truly does help establish a wrestler when it comes time to compete in that match. It is more beneficial than you think.

No we can't, but I'm not just talking about what we know. Other fans mean a hell of a lot more to business than we do. The casual fans are the ones that are essentially the fans that bring in the big bucks these days. Therefore if they recognize Taker for competing in Casket Matches (which they do) they will most certainly get their way. It is Undertaker's match and he has made it more popular since his Deadman character return in 2004.

Me and you are debating two completely different things. You think that for a match to be essential with someone you have to compete in everyone of the said matches. While I am debating about which match concept a character has kayfabe brought into a company and has made it work and has gotten that match seemingly "over" for the past eighteen years.

Again sticking to hat one simple fact do you're talking.

Usually wrestlers who even have a one on one match, hell let alone any match stipulation with The Undertaker are most certainly in for a long night.

Explain to me why I can't use kayfabe to back my side of the debate?

Which if needs be I can resort to katfabe and it's affects on the average fan to support my entire side of my debate. It is basically my whole point against you.

Casket Matches are synonymous with The Undertaker, they are the match that most recognize that he "created" and the match he essentially "owns". Nobody "owns" the Cage Match or Stretcher Match because they are just a random stipulation. No one has made a big enough impact with them to be considered their match. So for that reason these matches are not on the same level.

From your flawed source he could very well have debuted the concept to the wrestling world and at the same time made it very popular. Most fans recognize Undertaker as the Casket matches creator. They know that that is the match that Taker created and that he has used it for years. It is by far the more popular match and is therefore more related to Taker.

Did I need to go into detail on how he got buried? I didn't think so because the main point was he was buried and ultimately proves his poor luck when he competes in what you claim is the match the most "related" to him.

It helps is what i have been stating. If you are dominant in the said match then fans will recognize you as the one to beat in those matches and also if your very dominant then they know it is the match you own.

However it has mainly ended in Taker's demise, something that the Casket Match rarely happened on occasion.

That is a perfect point of this debate. Which match is more related to Undertaker in terms of popularity and career success. This is the point I have been hitting home seemingly forever. If a match is very and I mean very well known with a wrestler and their character to the point where that match is the match everyone remembers him competing in and it also at the same time made that wrestler's career soar to new heights, then how is it possible that the said match isn't the most related to them?

Again the fact is I can use WWE and kayfabe to my benefit and for the most part or maybe even the whole debate I have. Which if you take the two factors you are shunning then it easily puts this debate in my favor.

I was defending it since Kane is the one wrestler that has had most connection to The Undertaker his entire career. That was my point.

I was saying Taker could have used his brother's specialty like Kane did with the Casket Match that one time. Don't look so much into it next time.

I am willing to bet that without The Undertaker, Casket Matches would have never made their way into mainstream wrestling and the world's most popular wrestling promotion.

It absolutely matters to my side of the debate. My entire side of this debate for the billionth time is that Undertaker's most relevant gimmick match to most fans os the Casket Match. It is his most popular gimmick match to compete in. I have hammered this point long enough.

Well you admitted right here that I can use fans and kayfabe to benefit my side of the debate. The rules do not say stick with kayfabe for your debates but they don't say anything about not being able to use it.

It kind of does matter if only characters who have been close to The Undertaker are the only ones who can use his match. Back on point Brown/Siaki wouldn't have happened without taker debuting the concept and that goes for the other two in WWE that did not involve Taker. Also Rhodes/Koloff is a speculated match that could have happened in the 1970s.

Which is why Big Show (albeit due to Khali not being able to compete) took on Undertaker in the Punjabi Prison. Khali didn't even compete in the first one and it's "his" match.

Again were debating two different angles for the same subject. It making for some entertaining and heated posts though.

The point I am debating however is, that Undertaker is basically the only wrestler on the planet known for competing in Casket Matches to the casual fan, and it is is his most popular gimmick for him to wrestle in. Which is why fan support is what I am using to further my side of the debate.

Other than adding a new match to his repertoire it did not add a single thing to his persona.

Well it does matter because in reality that is what happened. Does that make sense to you?

It has ended plenty of more feuds than The Buried Alive Match ever did while it was around.

Even if it happened a decade later?

Neither of the matches they had after the 90s were Casket Matches. Also it was HBK who won that original Casket Match, so he shouldn't have had any fear about going in one because he never experienced it to begin with.

Michaels challenged Taker again because he was confident he could beat him even at WrestleMania. Before Mania' 25 Taker had never beaten Shawn in his entire career. Why would Michaels be intimidated by someone he never lost too even in a Casket Match. A match where Shawn beat Taker, that would be a huge confidence booster if anything since he beat Taker in his own match.

Triple H has also been more dominant in HIAC matches than Taker has. Which in turn *gasp* makes him more relevant with the match than anyone else.

That is your side you have been nailing. Taker has always been in the small amount of four Buried Alive Matches so due to this fact it is his match, yea I get it. My side is that due to him making the match as popular as it has gotten over the last eighteen years and it is regarded by many casual fans as his specialty, it is therefore more synonymous with The Undertaker character.

Ask Triple H who is more synonymous with Hell In A Cell matches then any other wrestler in WWE history. This is all due to the apparently "useless" winning record.

I never said he never lost, for the most part though he has been unstoppable in them and he is booked as such.

Because you are still missing my main points on my side of this debate.

Popularity is a huge thing in wrestling. It is what drives the business. And it has kept the Casket Match alive for many years. While we have yet to see a Buried Alive Match since 2003. The more popular and recognized a match gets with a certain wrestler is the more synonymous it becomes with the said wrestler.

Fans are everything in professional wrestling. They drive the whole business. Without them there would be no business. It is because of them that Casket Matches are more well known with Taker than other gimmick matches. Why is this point so hard to get a across?

Most certainly not irrelevant, once or twice I have gotten something wrong, I am lazy for researching, and basically all points have gotten a rise out of you so I must be doing something right.

So because it doesn't matter to you, then that makes it's useless for me to use in this debate?

I have already stated I can use fan support and kayfabe all I want. There is no limitation to what I can use to back up my side of this debate. Therefore due to casual fan knowledge and kayfabe facts, The Undertaker's most related gimmick match still remains to be the Casket Match.

No, you are missing my point. We are using two completely different factors in both our sides of this debate. It will all depend on who's side the judges like more, so don't get too cocky now.

 

I really don't have time for three hour replies each time, so I'm just not going to respond to point I don't feel contribute to the debate.

There are points in a debate where kayfabe applies, and points when it doesn't. This is one of those times where it does apply.

You could say this, yes. They are his absolute specialty. But you have to understand where I am coming from in this debate. I am coming from the aspect of the debate where I believe that aside from what is popular opinion for fans, what general fans remember, and what has been portrayed in kayfabe and storyline, the fact is that Undertaker has been connected to Buried Alive more than he has Casket matches. That is the only point I have to debate against you, and it is one you can't disprove. And I'm debating that the match you are more connected to is your match more than the one you aren't, so I believe Buried Alive wins this battle.

This isn't a debate about since Undertaker returned as The Deadman in 2004. It is a debate since Undertaker debuted, in 1990. And from 1990 to 2010, Undertaker has always revolved around Buried Alive when it was held. The same can't be said for Undertaker and the casket match. You know where my debate is coming from, and the fact that you can't disprove my main point makes your debate futile.

I don't care if the writers created the matches. The character is the one that introduced them. Undertaker introduced the Casket match to the WWE. Undertaker introduced Buried Alive to the WWE. Ivan Koloff and Dusty Rhodes introduced the casket match to professional wrestling. Undertaker introduced Buried Alive to professional wrestling. I don't care who made the concept famous, it still wasn't his character's concept to begin with, and since this is our debate, you and I know this, and I provided a source with many more available on the internet, this is all that matters.

You bring up a good point, and it is a nice attempt, but it doesn't work. This is WWE's fault for booking the match this way. Buried Alive is a great concept, but WWE booking team doesn't use it. But, this debate isn't about which match is booked or used better. it's about which match is more related to Undertaker. It was a good point though.

No Undertaker would have meant no Buried Alive matches regardless. You're arguing something that I can argue just as easy for my side.

As big of a side of your debate as it is, it still doesn't do anything to dispell my one simple fact that Buried Alive has always been connected to or revolved around Taker. Albeit it was only one or two times, the casket match hasn't. And that is the whole foundation of my debate.

Yet that is the whole of your debate. The whole of my debate is that one simple fact that I keep bringing up over and over again, that you can't dispell in any way with your debate. And as long as my debate centers on the fact that you can't essentially have a match belong to you unless it has always been involved with you by fued, storyline, or physical involvement, I still win.

But we do know how WWE used the Casket match since it's WWE debut. And no point you have or still can make can dispell the fact that is has not always involved Undertaker, where Buried Alive up to this date has. It is irrelevant how WWE planned to use Buried Alive, because it never happened. But we know what happened with the Casket match.

This isn't even the point I was trying to make. I was trying to make the point that a winning record means nothing going into a match. i could be going into a football game 9-0 with my team and the other team could be 0-9. But if they are the better team on that day then I will lose regardless. But maybe if I enhance my mind games I try to use against them (which is what these matches do; enhance the mind games people like Kane and Undertaker usually play) then I will have a better possibility to win. That applies here.

Once agains, this is nothing but bad booking by the creative team, and this debate isn't over which match is booked better.

No, it is not.

These casual fans do nothing to dispell that one fact I have: Undertaker has been connected and involved with in storyline to Buried Alive more than Casket matches. When you are able to dispell that by magically changing it so every Casket match has had a storyline connected to Undertaker, I will admit defeat. Until then, you're outta luck.

My debate is coming from the point where to own a single gimmick match, that match should be associated with you in the storyline of the match every time it is used. It is how I interpreted this debate, and how I am debating for it.

I never said you have to compete in every single match. But it needs to be connected to that person in the match's storylines every time it is used. The fact that Undertaker has gotten the match over and is most associated with it is true, and I'm not saying it isn't. What I am saying is that Buried Alive has always involved Taker in storylines and fueds, where the Casket match can't. And you can't prove me wrong on that.

Because it is fact and there is no way you can dispell it.

You can. But kayfabe is not in anyway going to dispell my one fact that I have against you that is the center point of my whole debate. Use it all you want, and when you find anything that dispells my one fact...well, that's not going to happen, but try anyway.

Yes, but it still doesn't dispell my whole point against you.

No, it's more associated with Taker. But there are times in history of the match where the storyline where the match was used did not relate to Undertaker. Buried Alive has always had a storyline that related in some way or another to Undertaker. Therefore, Buried Alive is more related to Undertaker than the casket match.

This debate is not about which match Undertaker fares better in, it is about which match he is better related to.

Being dominant in a match plays know part in a wrestler owning a match. It makes the fans think you are harder to beat in that match, maybe, but if you haven't always been associated with it you can't own it, even if you are undefeated in said match type.

Because he has not always been related to the storylines in which the match took place. In example, Kane vs. Triple H.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that the match was used in a storyline that revolved around only Kane and Triple H, which means for at least one match in history the storyline of a Casket match was not related to Undertaker. That has never happened in Buried Alive, so this relates Buried Alive to him more than casket matches.

And Kane would no longer be able to call the Inferno match his own, unless he was directly involved in the storyline.

Buried Alive wouldn't have either.

Yet he has not always in storylines been related to the match when it took place.

Until someone can absolutely prove it didn't happen in the 70's, it did happen in my book.

Yes. He was directly invovled in the storyline for that first match, and has been involved in the storylines for the matches ever since. It is his match.

You can use fan support all you want, but fan support still doesn't dispell what I am debating.

Yes it did. It gave him a deeper sense of evil, which was previously untapped. Before, people knew the man was evil enough to put a man in a casket, but they didn't know he was evil enough to actually bury someone alive.

Once again, which match is booked better is not the point of this debate.

Yep. The fued was renewed, and it doesn't matter how long it took.

So you concede to this fact? I want the judges to read this line closely, he just conceded to the single point I have been debating up to this point.

Yeah, it is synonymous with him. Yet it is not better related to him. You don't get it, do you?

I undertstand your points. I'm just saying your points can't beat mine. Which they can't.

You really don't get this, do you? Is isn't about which match is more popular. It is about which match is better related to Undertaker.

I understand completely your point. But it still doesn't change the fact that I have stated over and over again, which completely supports the theory of my debate which I have stated over and over again.

No offense, but there have been a few more things than 1 or 2 that you have gotten wrong.

You do realize one of the things the judges use in determining the winner in information, right?

You're doing alot of stuff right, unfortunately one of them is not proving me wrong. You are a good debator, I'll give it to you, but I have interpreted a solid theory from the original topic, which is supported by the facts I'm debating, and you can't disprove my facts wrong.

And if this seems personal, it's not. It's just business, and me getting passionate for it.

If it isn't proving my fact wrong, which it's not, it probably isn't worth using as I'll shrug it off every time with that one cold hard fact I have.

And if you are wondering why I'm not stating that fact anymore, it is because I am tired of typing it over and over. Read above if you forget what my point was.

It isn't the most related gimmick match to him through my, once again, solid theory.

It isn't hard to figure out, and if the judges haven't figured out where I am coming from yet, read here because I am getting tired of repeating it over and over in different words. The original topic was:

I interpreted from this: Which match is better related to Undertaker. Through this, I formed my theory: The match that Undertaker has been more related to throughout storyline and fued history of each match is the one he is related to better.

In this theory, I found one simple fact: Undertaker has been connected with or involved in every Buried Alive match, through storylines or through physical involvement. He hasn't in the Casket match. I also obtained many secondary facts which I have pointed out in my debate.

I just did this so everyone knows where I am in this debate, and to prove to everyone how I have proved throughout this debate that Buried Alive matchs are better related to The Undertaker than Casket matches are.

 

I feel the exact same way, it truly does get tedious after awhile.

Again that's all a part of this debate. Using different factor(s) to help your side of it. My side is as you have stated making a match work with the audience have it the most recognizable match to them that you compete in. It's a way different factor than yours but it'd still my side of the debate and therefore I can still use it to help me out.

This debate is about a match that is better related to Taker. If that means me bringing up his 2004 Deadman return to present, than I will do so. There are no limits to this debate. It is about which match is the best related to Taker, which for the majority of the wrestling world is: the Casket Match. Especially since the return of The Deadman in 2004.

In the WWE it was his concept to begin with though. He was the one debuted the concept to the masses and made it popular. It is the match that practically all his fans recognize that he has competed in. If that doesn't make a match more related to you I don't know what does. More of a relation ultimately makes the better relation in my mind. Again you can go on and talk about these very reason with Buried Alive but which match has Taker used longer, and which match has the more richer history in his career?

It's about which match is better related to Taker. Which I guess WWE: the company, the man works for feel is better suited for him to compete in. They don't use this match anymore but they have had plenty of Casket Matches. It's better business to have the more recognized match be the one a popular wrestling character compete in. The Buried Alive Match never quite caught on like Casket Matches did for if they did become extremely popular than WWE would have used them no matter what the costs or set up extremes might have been because it was what the audience wanted and therefore would have been good business. This is what did happen with Casket Matches and The Undertaker.

Sure, but where is the popularity? Where is it today? Why haven't we seen one since 2003. Maybe it just didn't catch on with Taker's character like Casket Matches did. You know I'm just throwing that out there.

I have come to realize that over the last billion posts, it is your biggest opposition as is being over with fans and being the most recognized match in Taker's history is my main foundation to my side of the debate.

In your mind that makes you win, but it's not dispelling any side of the debate I'm on. Saying that Taker didn't compete in every Casket Match as he has Buried Alive does nothing to rebuttal my my main foundation of which match is the most related to Taker by fans and what match has gotten the most popular over eighteen years of use.

Again you bring this up in every paragraph, I get that it is YOUR foundation. That makes sense you need at least something to back up your argument.

Taker and Kane still use mind games if they aren't competing in gimmick matches. It's basically how they further all their feuds. However I will say going into a match that heavily favors them does no good for their opponents and will probably throw them more off their game.

Why can't I use this to support my claim? Well I already have and their are no rules against it so I will continue to do so.

You know thats impossible because this is what happened. I can't legitimately say these matches never happened and that Undertaker has been in every Casket Match ever because I would be lying through my teeth until they rotted. However the fans are a big part of my side of the debate and I will continue to do so. You have a main fact and so do I they are just very different from each other. However they both point out how the matches are related to Taker. My point does point out the match has been the most related to Taker and therefore due to having the most relation is the better related match.

Again I have already said I get what you are using for your side of the debate.

No but once again for it to be what most fan want to see and since they relate Casket Matches with Taker the most, it is the more related match to Taker and it is the better match of the two to use for business. I can repeat myself just as much as you. It's obvious we are using two completely different factors on both of our sides, that is obvious.

I never once have but how can I dispel true life facts? That would make me seem like the world's biggest lier as well as a lier who fails big time in doing so. i can't dispel what truly happened in professional wrestling but i can debate myself around it which I have been doing.

Again I can't even try to dispel the fact that Taker hasn't competed in all Casket Matches that if literally impossible for me to do so. But what I have been doing is using other facts about the Casket Match such as its popularity with the audience to work my way around your onslaught.

Not too plenty of Undertaker fans though. They see the Casket Match as his match. He is the only wrestler to come to many fan's minds when the Casket Match comes up. It is his most popular gimmick match he has ever used in his entire career. This is evident at the amount of times it has been used since The Deadman character's return. It also has the more richer history in Taker's career. It has been involved in more major feuds than Buried Alive has and is the essential Undertaker gimmick match. More relation, makes it the better related match to The Demon of Deathvalley. My point to you has never been so clear.

Faring better can make your relation to the match even more notable.

Owning something means to ultimately be the man in that match. You are the dominant force the opposition has to over come. I did not mean own as in owning a car I meant the type of owning essentially that you hear gamers say all the time.

Besides that and the Minisry, it has only been Taker using this match. And it he has the only one to have been using since his 2004 Deadman return.

The only point you have used this entire debate. It may differ very much from my main point(s) but at least you have something to argue with.

it would if the majority of fans still all recognized him for that one match type. Therefore making it the most related to him than any other wrestler who would use it.

Moot point since you know it's not around anymore anyway.

Still doesn't take away from how synonymous the match is with his character.

Until someone can for sure prove it DID happen, it's still all speculation to me. See how easy I can turn that around?

Over stating the fact that Taker has competed in the only four Buried Alive Matches in history while he has never been in all Casket Matches ever doesn't dispel what I'm debating over either.

Not the way I seen it, the man only added a new match where the rules would highly benefit him. He was always portrayed as a character that is as evil as they come.

In your opinion, absolutely nothing is stopping me from using this point on my side of this debate.

One feud was over the WWF title, the other was over Taker's streak. The two feuds were completely different and had nothing to do with each other at all. They didn't even bring up that Taker was the one who injured Shawn's back in the first place which happened in that original 98 feud. The two feuds were completely seperate and were not over the same things.

The more synonymous, the better the relation to the audience. Enter: Casket Matches.

In your opinion they are lesser I think they do a fine job of debating around your one solid point.

For the billionth time. The more popularity, the better relation a match will have with a wrestler.

I have done this as well and boy does it sure get tedious after awhile.

The topic doesn't truly just stick to the side your debating, ti could very well also swing my way. If you can out debate me on the popularity argument you might have something against me. However you are not and I have continuously dug my way around your quote on quote "solid theory".

Good I wouldn't want to make an enemy out of a simple friendly debate.

i think I seem to be doing the exact same thing.

Read my facts and try to dispute them and maybe we'll get somewhere.

Casket Matches way more related to him than Buried Alive Matches are, therefore your theory isn't so solid.

I have done all I can to try and prove to my opponent here why Casket Matches are the better related Undertaker gimmick match. Since this is the subject of the week. Judges i have shown that since 1992 Undertaker has made this gimmick work. The crowd for the most part have always been into these matches.

In his feuds with Yokozuna, HBK, and others during his reign of terror in the 90s Taker has been able to show dominance in the said match and establish his name forever with Casket Matches. These are the matches the crowd wants to see Taker compete in, especially since his return to the Dead man character in 2004. For the past six years it has been used as the gimmick match that Undertaker owns.

In the past six years it's quite possible that he has made the Casket Match even more popular than it was during his original debut of the concept in 1992. This is the gimmick match that majority of Undertaker fans think of when they think of specialties of The Deadman. The more related the match is to you through fans of the business ultimately makes it the better related match for you.

When business time comes then it's the right choice if they need to use the match for an Undertaker story-line because it is the audience's show. So if Buried Alive is as "related" to Taker more so than Casket Matches then where have they been for the past seven years or so? Why haven't we seen one since the return of the Deadman character, you know the more essential Undertaker character to use this gimmick with? Again it all comes down to what fans all consider your specialty to be. The majority scream Casket Matches and therefore it is Undertaker's essential gimmick match.

 

SpoodBeest and I have came to the mutual agreement via PM that we have both debated our sides to their peaks, and that to avoid our debate to just be repeating ourselves over and over with no point, we will post our closing arguments now and leave this debate to the judges. So without further ado, here I go.

The topic of this debate was originally:

From this I interpreted that I was to decide which match type is better related to The Undertkaer. Wether this is the way I was to interpet this debate or not, I don't know. But this is the way I figured it in my head, and it is what I went with.

I formed a theory from this: If a person is connected with a match through storylines, fueds, or physical involvement with one match more than another through out history of both matches, then he is better related to it, regardless of anyone else's opinion. This is the way I felt, and this is what I debated. And these are points I have used to debate that:

The Undertaker is better related to Buried Alive matches than Casket matches.

1. Undertaker has not always been involved with or connected to Casket matches. He has been with Buried Alive matches.

I'll even take the TNA match out of this part. But it still stands that there have been two casket matches, Dusty Rhodes vs. Ivan Koloff and Triple H vs. Kane, where The Undertaker was not only not involved in the match itself, but he was not even connected to it through storyline! He has always been connected with in storyline with Buried Alive, and you cannot prove either fact in this debate wrong. If you want a source, it is posted in my opening post to this debate.

2. The Undertaker only introduced The Casket match concept to WWE, but not professional wrestling as a whole. He introduced Buried Alive to both WWE and professional wrestling as a whole.

The first casket match, contrary to popular belief, did not invovle Undertaker. It debuted as a concept in a match between Ivan Koloff and Dusty Rhodes in Houston Wrestling in the 1970's. Wether known about my most fans or not, it has not been proven false by anybody. So, not only has Undertaker not always been coneccted to this match, he didn't even debut the concept to the sport! Where as Undertaker debuted the concept to the sport as a whole, not just in WWE.

I also have a second theory I want to debate as a secondary part of my debate as a whole, which is that Buried Alive is a better match and better suited for ending fueds than Casket matches. And here are my points to this.

1. Casket matches are slower paced.

The fact is the better matches usually have a good flow and a good pace. Where as a casket match features most of the action with a wrestler trying to put his opposition in the casket, which really slows down the action and hurts the pace and match quality. In Buried Alive matches, the pace only slows down when someone is being thrown in the grave, and there are usually fewer attempts at this in the match.

2. Buried Alive matches are more violent.

Gimmick matches and fued ending matches are supposed to be violent, and Buried Alive has historically been more violent. The No DQ stipulation is usually not used to it's maximum in Casket matches, where as it is used more in Buried Alive. Violence makes for better gimmick matches and fued-ending matches.

3. Buried Alive matches have more finality.

Despite the fact that there have been fewer fueds ended in a Buried Alive matches and fewer of the matches overall, it cannot be argued that it has more finality to it. In a casket match you are locked inside a casket match but no harm really comes to you and you appear again within the next week in most cases. In Buried Alive, you are buried under a pile of dirt where you could easily sustain injuries, or in severe cases where a booker wants to kill off a character, completely buried alive. It cannot be argued, that no matter how each match has been booked through history, Buried Alive has more finality.

That wraps up my debate. As you can see I took the debate and applied my theory to it. I debated my side clearly, backed it up with solid information and facts, and the facts that are true facts that cannot be debated are usually very persuading, all of which are points which these debates are judged on. I think I very clearly proved my point, so I will wrap this up as I have let everyone know exactly why:

Buried Alive is the better related Undertaker match.

 

I will now provide my finale to my side of this here debate. The original subject was as follows:

So without any further ado let's dive right into this. I figured that by which match is the better related match to Undertaker would most certainly be the match in which the fan base of wrestling will most recognize with The Phenom and which match is the most popular to use from a business perspective.

Not to mention that in kayfabe Undertaker did bring in the Casket Match concept not only to the WWE but top an entire mainstream audience of fans back in the early 90s. The exact year this match debuted in WWE was 1992. From there on Taker would make this match, the match that most WWE fans would remember as his main match.

1.Popularity is Everything in Pro Wrestling.

We all know that getting something over with the fans is essential to professional wrestling in every way. Undertaker has done very effectively with Casket Matches. When a gimmick works and continues to be a good marketing affect on pay-per-view buys, television ratings, and even live attendance then the match concept is working and if it works every time than no matter what the cost for it is to set up WWE will do so. If the Buried Alive Match was as popular with The Undertaker as Casket Matches are we would have seen plenty more by now. The thing is didn't catch on like Casket matches have and is therefore not as related or popular with The Undertaker as Casket Matches are.

2. Only Undertaker and Related Characters to him have used this match

The Casket Match only on two direct occasions was not used by The Undertaker. However in both of these occurrences it were characters that were related to Taker in someway in the past or present that used it. When Mideon and Viscera used this match to get the better of Triple H it was because it was their leaders specialty and therefore thought they coudl use it to their advantage. Kane is the other wrestler who has used this match on one occasion in WWE. There is no questioning that Kane is the character who is the closest to The Undertaker in terms of story-line so it makes it quite obvious why he would use his brother's techniques to benefit himself against a common enemy that they shared in Triple H.

3. Undertaker is more domiant in Casket Matches

A wrestler's dominance can have a significant affect on how a wrestler is received by the audience in the said match. Undertaker has a very good track record when game time comes for Casket Matches. Out of nineteen Casket Matches he has competed in he has won twelve of them. Meaning he has only lost seven. During these matches he always has a distinct advantage over his opponents and the crowds realize this. Due to the ever so impressive dominant performances he has in these matches the crowd recognizes him more. This increases the popularity this match has with him and therefore becomes more synonymous and related. Taker has only competed in four Buried Alive Matches in WWE history since that is the only amount of time these matches have taken place. He only won two of them and on three of four occasions ended up getting buried. Not as much of a positive light as when he competes in Casket Matches. Triple H is also a prime example of this factor and why he is known for his work in Hell in A Cell matches is because for the most part he is always dominant in them.

4. Casket Matches are more Realistic

A main issue I have with Buried Alive Matches is just how phony and unbelievable they are. We all know the wrestler isn't truly getting buried alive and if they did they would legitimately die. However when they do end up getting "buried" they have to sell the affects of getting "killed" only for them to return mere weeks or months later. Giving off the very fake of them just getting resurrected from the dead. Where as in Casket Matches they legitimately get out in caskets. Also in doing this there is no reason to sell the affects of "death" because they were only put in a container to end the match up.

5. Casket Matches have flourished since 2004/Deadman return

Since Undertaker returned under The Deadman character in 2004 he has consistently used the Casket Match to end, continue, or jump start feuds with various wrestlers. In the course of doing this over the last six years or so the gimmick has been even more related to Taker than it has been i nthe past. It's the main match that people want to see Taker in so that they can see whomever he is feuding with get the ultimate comeuppance. This is why that with the general wrestling audience Undertaker's Casket Matches are way more related to him than Buried Alive matches are. Which if it turns out this way for business, then it's the better related match to use.

I have given all my points as to why Casket Matches are better set for Undertaker and his feuds, so ultimately it is up to the judges who has proven the better point(s).

 

A lot of text. Got a little repetitive, but that was bound to happen. Let's get to the scoring.

Clarity: This I am going to be a stickler for throughout the entire proceedings. Learn from it and go forward. See, for me clarity is not only being able to use proper grammar or spelling. It's also keeping the debate concise and not rolling off track with points you think are well made. Sign Guy started it out and SpoodBeest retorted. Be smart about it, you are the one needing to convince someone, don't go right after all of their points. However, Sign Guy also had an opening argument, which SpoodBeest was lacking.

Point: The Sign Guy

Punctuality: Both were on time.

Point: Split

Informative: This is the meat of your arguments. Now while we get that the first Casket Match was Dusty Rhodes, blah blah, prove why each is more related. Neither really did that to me. Both used some decent info, SG with the first one, but Spood with the amount of Casket Matches and the Undertaker's record in them and when the last one was.

Point: Split

Persuasion: This was where one person just couldn't sway me after his third time repeating it. I don't know about the other judges, but to me it doesn't matter if Taker didn't introduce the Casket Match to the wrestling world. When I hear Casket Match I think of Taker, not some bumble fuck match from the '70s, and sure as shit no D'Lo Brown vs. random guy in TNA. Taker is more associated with it, and when I think of the Undertaker, or any undertaker in general, I know a casket will likely be seen. Spood did a good job hammering this point home, where SG kept trying to make his irrelevant point mean something more than it already did.

Points: SpoodBeest x2

CH David scores this SpoodBeest 3, The Sign Guy 2.

 

Clarity of debate: Sign Guy
Spoodbeest kept on discussing elements not relevant to the debate, while it adds about Taker's feuds, some points didn't assist whereas Sign Guy kept on target while trying to bring Spoodbeest back.

Punctuality: Draw
Both were on time with no obvious signs of lateness from either.

Informative: Sign Guy
Originally I was going to draw this, but Sign Guy's opening post stood out as it had references and gave further information, he also caught out Spoodbeest on a few factual errors in his argument.

Persuasion: Spoodbeest
When it first started, Sign Guy was ahead for me, but as the debate went on, Spoodbeest was drawing himself back by adding more depth and elements to his debate. Had Sign Guy been consistent with his quality of argument from the beginning, I would have seen myself support him but the repetitiveness of the same points made me lose interest in wanting to know why Buried Alive was better as Spoodbeest was able to draw me back on the Casket and kept me in support of that.

Final Score
Spoodbeest: 2.5
Sign Guy: 2.5

 

Read my judgments regarding Blue Cardinal's and Steve's first-round debates, SpoodBeast, then you'll see why I have you losing this debate. Your information and rebuttals were top notch, though.

Sign Guy, you're going to do well in college; you already have the science of bullshitting down to a tee. Luckily for you, this didn't bite you in the ass during this debate, but it might in future rounds. My advice? Don't be afraid to give your opinion on what type of match is superior. You did a nice job of manipulating the debate topic to your advantage, but debates are almost always about opinions. Your job is to convince us why your opinion is more acceptable than your opponent's.

Final Score

Sign Guy 3.5 (Punctuality (.5), Informative (.5), Persuasion (1.5), Clarity)

SpoodBeast 1.5 (Punctuality (.5), Informative (.5), Persuasion (.5))

 

Spoodbeast, you needed an opening argument. You provided a ton of information though.

Clarity- Sign Guy had an opening post and I knew where he stood the entire debate. Couldn't say the same about Spoodbeast. Sign Guy kept the debate relevant. Spoodbeast kept fading off topic.

Point: Sign Guy

Punctuality- Draw. No one was really late.

Point: Both

Informative- Sign Guy did a lot with his opening post. Therefore he wins the debate. It was closed to being a tie, then I re-read Sign Guys opening post and realized he had a ton of information.

Point: Sign Guy

Persuasion- Gotta give it to Sign Guy. He stayed with the original topic and did not go off topic. His opening post was excellent and he provided a lot of information and had me second guess the original idea in my head. Making me second guess my original thought was enough to warrant the two points. Spoodbeast had a lot to work with and he couldn't capitalize. Sign Guy did. Which is why he got the points.

Tally:
Sign Guy: 4.5
Spoodbeast: .5

 

After a complete judge's tally, The Sign Guy is the victor on 12.5 points to Spoodbeest's 7.5.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!