Semi-Finals: Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker

[Little Jerry Lawler]

His Punk matchs prove differently.
The dx/spirit squad fued went on a bit long but as for HHH and HBK dominating obviously that was going to happen the whole point was that they were cheerleaders not wrestlers.
Undertaker got banished if memory serves correctly? Which i get isn't the end of the fued that HiaC was but that was what i was refering to.
Undertaker doesnt wrestle in a lot of his fueds the lights just go out and the person he is fueding with is on the floor with him standing over them.
Sorry i spelt it wrong still doesnt stop you being one though.

So you're going to take two matches he had with Punk to say disprove my claim that Undertaker's prime has been in the past five years? Hell, I can find a couple of matches in any wrestler's prime that weren't great. Does that make it less of a prime then?

If the whole point was that they were cheerleaders not wrestlers, then why did they feud then? DX feuded with the McMahons who were also not wrestlers so basically HBK did nothing in 2006. Most if not all of the Spirit Squad came from OVW I think. By your statement, you are saying that OVW doesn't have wrestlers.

Let's get to your statement that the Undertaker doesn't wrestle in a lot of his feuds. He had two or three matches with Kurt Angle in 2006. He had five matches against Batista and five or six against Edge. He and Edge wrestled in four straight PPV's I believe and you say he don't wrestle in a lot of his feuds. Even when he was standing over Punk at Summerslam, he wrestled two matches against him and a third at that fatal four way at Bragging Rights.

Keep trying.

 

[The Insano Shiekh]

Even with this not being Wrestlemania, I'm going to have to say that Taker is going to take it here. This match would be amazing I think, but comparing the two movesets of both competitors, I think it's smart to say that Taker would have the upper hand in a lot of the important moments. With the strength handicap going to the Undertaker, it would be hard for HBK to get him down for a while. Taker also has an advantage in supernatural abilities, if he got in trouble, something "supernatural" would happen, such as the lights going out and him being in a casket or making the turnbuckle nearest to HBK be set on fire. All and all, Taker takes this amazing matchup.

 

[Teddy Irving]

So you're going to take two matches he had with Punk to say disprove my claim that Undertaker's prime has been in the past five years? Hell, I can find a couple of matches in any wrestler's prime that weren't great. Does that make it less of a prime then?

If the whole point was that they were cheerleaders not wrestlers, then why did they feud then? DX feuded with the McMahons who were also not wrestlers so basically HBK did nothing in 2006. Most if not all of the Spirit Squad came from OVW I think. By your statement, you are saying that OVW doesn't have wrestlers.

Let's get to your statement that the Undertaker doesn't wrestle in a lot of his feuds. He had two or three matches with Kurt Angle in 2006. He had five matches against Batista and five or six against Edge. He and Edge wrestled in four straight PPV's I believe and you say he don't wrestle in a lot of his feuds. Even when he was standing over Punk at Summerslam, he wrestled two matches against him and a third at that fatal four way at Bragging Rights.

Keep trying.

His prime has been the last 5 years you say and he is going downhill other than his matchs with michaels at mania. So 5 years = takers prime. When michaels prime was back in the days that bret was there and he hasn't missed a step since then he is just as good. Takers prime = 5years. Michaels = the last 5 years and all the time back in the day.
In 2006 HBK/dx fueded with the mcmahons and the spirit squad this was for comedic values and the crowd loved it. The point of the fued was to try make the mcmahons seem less likely to be beaten by dx because they had 5 other cheerleader/wrestlers with them. The spirit squad were more meant to be henchmen for the mcmahons to give them a better chance against dx. Fueding with the mcmahons although they arent wrestlers can not be seen as doing nothing though, because if it is then Austin did nothing in his whole career in wwf. As for them not being wrestlers i didnt say that i said there gimmick at that time was that they were more meant to be cheerleaders than wrestlers.
My point was that in undertaker fueds alot of the time his opponent is in the ring the lights go out and when they come back on taker is standing over them while they are laid out or he is standing behind them. This is how he builds all of his fueds up. Yeah your right he wrestles the people at ppv's but during the build up he doesn't really wrestle at all he just does his lights out thing.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

His prime has been the last 5 years you say and he is going downhill other than his matchs with michaels at mania. So 5 years = takers prime. When michaels prime was back in the days that bret was there and he hasn't missed a step since then he is just as good. Takers prime = 5years. Michaels = the last 5 years and all the time back in the day.
In 2006 HBK/dx fueded with the mcmahons and the spirit squad this was for comedic values and the crowd loved it. The point of the fued was to try make the mcmahons seem less likely to be beaten by dx because they had 5 other cheerleader/wrestlers with them. The spirit squad were more meant to be henchmen for the mcmahons to give them a better chance against dx. Fueding with the mcmahons although they arent wrestlers can not be seen as doing nothing though, because if it is then Austin did nothing in his whole career in wwf. As for them not being wrestlers i didnt say that i said there gimmick at that time was that they were more meant to be cheerleaders than wrestlers.
My point was that in undertaker fueds alot of the time his opponent is in the ring the lights go out and when they come back on taker is standing over them while they are laid out or he is standing behind them. This is how he builds all of his fueds up. Yeah your right he wrestles the people at ppv's but during the build up he doesn't really wrestle at all he just does his lights out thing.

Austin may have feuded with McMahon but he didn't feud with him directly except that St. Valentine's Massacre match. McMahon always had wrestlers in his disposal to take out Stone Cold so it is much different than him and his son actually wrestling HBK.

I remember Undertaker choosing Batista after the 2007 Royal Rumble and them being placed in a tag team match against Cena and HBK at No Way Out. I remember Undertaker wrestling on Smackdown against Edge's cronies before their WM 24 encounter. HBK hardly wrestled at all the past few years let alone during the build up.

You can do better.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Austin may have feuded with McMahon but he didn't feud with him directly except that St. Valentine's Massacre match. McMahon always had wrestlers in his disposal to take out Stone Cold so it is much different than him and his son actually wrestling HBK.

I remember Undertaker choosing Batista after the 2007 Royal Rumble and them being placed in a tag team match against Cena and HBK at No Way Out. I remember Undertaker wrestling on Smackdown against Edge's cronies before their WM 24 encounter. HBK hardly wrestled at all the past few years let alone during the build up.

You can do better.

Wrestlers like the spirit squad who were used to try and take out dx you mean?
Hbk wrestled with legacy quite a bit in the last few years with either one or both members. He held the tag titles and was defending them nearly every week against jericho who was "obsessed" with getting them back. He took time off after last years mania which undertaker did aswell but was wrestling a fair bit after he came back. Before that he was wretsling a fair amount aswell.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

So would they have had the match go this way if Kane was never going to come in.

No. Had Kane not have been in the situation, then the Undertaker would have won. Was that not proven clear enough for you when the Undertaker knocked Michaels out?

Oh, but you need more proof? Okay, how about this.. Shawn Michaels hit the Undertaker with a chair at Summerslam, thus starting their feud. Typically in almost every feud - the guy seeking revenge, gets it through victory.

At Ground Zero, they wrestled to the point that the match was "thrown out", even though it seemed pretty clear the official DQ'd HBK for having Triple H at ringside and both of them jumping Taker in the ring.

This lead to the Hell in a Cell. Where, it was a first of it's kind - and obviously the Undertaker's signature match - a way to end a feud. Taker destroyed Michaels from beginning to end and had the match all but put away, until Kane interrupted and swayed the final result. (see this and repeat for their Royal Rumble encounter.)

If Kane was not involved, the Undertaker would've won to end the feud and gain revenge. Thats how wrestling 101 generally has always gone.

That is not my arguement i was just sick of people bringing up those 2 wins that taker has at mania because they were clean but discrediting michaels wins because they involved interferences

Uhm, yeah. Credit Taker because he won without help. Discredit Michaels because in this Tournament, help is not available.

How is that hard to understand?

How about you prove to me how taker can beat michaels outside of wrestlemania.

You mean, beyond how I already have on countless times and you just refuse to accept it and foolishly continue on making HBK look even worse? No, I think I quite enjoy you dragging him down with you.

Maybe you could go back Austin to help Ric Flair while you're at it.

You want to believe interference is the only reason why taker would ever lose.And yet the match,was still a match- that HBK won.

Yes. BY INTERFERENCE!

I'm finding it increasingly hard not to wanna flame you for ignorance.

Three times.

Two times. Both with help. Both in a Gimmick setting.

1.) Help is not allowed here.
2.) Gimmicks are not involved here.
3.) Shawn Michaels is about to get sent home, by the Undertaker, for the 2nd time in a year.

To my knowledge taker hasn't beaten michaels outside of mania. Which is what would be a need-to-happen thing. And yes thats your arguement changed to suit mine lol.

Okay, let me use the same naive logic.

Shawn Michaels has never defeated the Undertaker without help, or in a gimmick match.

Now what?

Undertaker seems the better pick

You even agree, and yet you can't let it go. Is there any reason why you continue, when you have nothing to continue with?

 

[Teddy Irving]

No. Had Kane not have been in the situation, then the Undertaker would have won. Was that not proven clear enough for you when the Undertaker knocked Michaels out?

Oh, but you need more proof? Okay, how about this.. Shawn Michaels hit the Undertaker with a chair at Summerslam, thus starting their feud. Typically in almost every feud - the guy seeking revenge, gets it through victory.

At Ground Zero, they wrestled to the point that the match was "thrown out", even though it seemed pretty clear the official DQ'd HBK for having Triple H at ringside and both of them jumping Taker in the ring.

This lead to the Hell in a Cell. Where, it was a first of it's kind - and obviously the Undertaker's signature match - a way to end a feud. Taker destroyed Michaels from beginning to end and had the match all but put away, until Kane interrupted and swayed the final result. (see this and repeat for their Royal Rumble encounter.)

If Kane was not involved, the Undertaker would've won to end the feud and gain revenge. Thats how wrestling 101 generally has always gone.

My point was that if they hadnt been introducing Kane here would they have had the match go this way? No they wouldnt because they obviously wanted Michaels to go over in this fued. At RR if they hadnt wanted to build the fued with Kane v Taker then they wouldnt have Kane interfere and michaels would have gone over anyway as this is the outcome that was wanted.

Uhm, yeah. Credit Taker because he won without help. Discredit Michaels because in this Tournament, help is not available.

How is that hard to understand?

Discredit Taker because those wins were at Mania to continue his streak how hard is that to understand. This tournament isn't held at mania.

You mean, beyond how I already have on countless times and you just refuse to accept it and foolishly continue on making HBK look even worse? No, I think I quite enjoy you dragging him down with you.

Maybe you could go back Austin to help Ric Flair while you're at it.

Trust me if i had my way Austin wouldnt even be in this tournament anymore it would be jericho v flair and i would again be pushing for jericho. I have proved why takers wins at mania mean as much as michaels do at other ppvs but you don't accept that for some reason.

Yes. BY INTERFERENCE!

I'm finding it increasingly hard not to wanna flame you for ignorance.

Michaels won because if interference Taker won because of Mania.

Okay, let me use the same naive logic.

Shawn Michaels has never defeated the Undertaker without help, or in a gimmick match.

Now what?

I'm using that logic because you seem to feel that michaels wins dont count because of interference but takers do even thought he won because of this streak.

You even agree, and yet you can't let it go. Is there any reason why you continue, when you have nothing to continue with?

You take my statements out of context because either 1. you don't read the whole post just the bits you want to read, or 2. you realise that in context they make sense and you can't make a reply to them.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

My point was that if they hadnt been introducing Kane here would they have had the match go this way? No they wouldnt because they obviously wanted Michaels to go over in this fued. At RR if they hadnt wanted to build the fued with Kane v Taker then they wouldnt have Kane interfere and michaels would have gone over anyway as this is the outcome that was wanted.

Err, no. The Undertaker dominated their feud and the only time Michaels ever had any type of upper hand was when the numbers were in his favor via that interference you want to ignore.

You're trying to factor in storylines from different points of view when you need to take apart everything, and look directly at the match and what happened without accepting any outside storylines.

The Undertaker dominated every. single. ONE. He had every. single. one. WON! Shawn Michaels holds victories for two reasons, and two reasons only. Gimmick match = no DQ. Outside interference forced the outcome to one side.

Shawn Michaels has NEVER proven he can defeat the Undertaker, when it comes down to a one-on-one situation without any outside influence.

Discredit Taker because those wins were at Mania to continue his streak how hard is that to understand. This tournament isn't held at mania.

The Tournament isn't held at Bad Blood, or the Royal Rumble. This specific match, also, is not held under No DQ/Gimmick match rules.

So, boil it down.. and you still have a situation, where Shawn Michaels has never proven to be able to defeat the Undertaker in a one-on-one match.. and the Undertaker has proven he can defeat Shawn Michaels, be it at Mania or anywhere else - had interference not forced the finish.

I have proved why takers wins at mania mean as much as michaels do at other ppvs but you don't accept that for some reason.

Because this is not a gimmick match, nor is outside interference allowed. While its not happening at Mania, I can show you plenty of times where the Undertaker's biggest moments of his career have come during events.. other than Wrestlemania.

You can not show me, where Shawn Michaels can win a one-on-one, regular match, without interference.

Michaels won because if interference Taker won because of Mania.

Once again, you can not prove to me how Michaels can win without the interference. I have shown you where & how Taker would've won, other than at Mania, against HBK.

I'm using that logic because you seem to feel that michaels wins dont count because of interference but takers do even thought he won because of this streak.

Its like you just repeat the same thing.

Michaels victories shouldn't count, for the simple reason - interference is NOT allowed in this contest.

Wrestlemania is just a place. Streak or not, it was just an actual match.. it was still one-on-one, and one of which involved HBK's career - the most important thing he has - and he still LOST!

You take my statements out of context because either 1. you don't read the whole post just the bits you want to read, or 2. you realise that in context they make sense and you can't make a reply to them.

Thus far every single reply I've made has fully countered and proven why you're just randomly talking without thinking. You have not given any information on how, or why, HBK can win fairly.

And until you do, all you're doing is avoiding the situation.. which defeats the purpose of continuing any debate.

On the opposite side of things, I have shown you how, and why, the Undertaker would've won (outside of Mania). And the best you can counter with is.. "but storyline wanted Michaels to win".

So, fine.. "storyline" wanted the Undertaker to END Shawn Michaels career.

Career ending victory at the biggest Pay per view of their Company >>>>> Random victory at a Pay per view less spectacular.

So, based on that ground breaking news.. The Undertaker would still be proven to "win", even through more important storylines.

 

[The Brain]

First of all I want to say that both Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker have been great performers for the past 20 years. Each man has had his share of wins and losses. That is expected considering their longevity. Both are capable of putting on a great match. Typically I prefer an HBK match to a Taker match. Shawn has been my favorite wrestler to watch over the years other than possibly Bret Hart. There’s no denying his talent, but to be fair Shawn has usually had better opponents to work with. Undertaker spent years wrestling guys like Kamala, Bundy, Giant Gonzalez, Big Show, and other behemoths not known for their in ring ability. When Taker got an opponent like Angle, Bret, or Michaels, Taker showed what he was capable of.

I really don’t understand those who are not factoring in WM25 and WM26. They say Taker only won because Vince wanted to keep the mania streak alive. Hello, this is pro wrestling. The only reason anyone wins at anytime is because it is what Vince wants. By that logic no one should be voting for Austin either. The only reason he was on top was because Vince allowed it. The same goes for Hogan, Rock, Cena, and anyone else including Shawn Michaels, from WWE. Taker beat Shawn clean at WM25 and WM26. There’s no denying that. The fact that it was at the biggest show of the year makes it even better for Taker.

Once again people have resorted to bashing the opponent rather than talking up their own guy. Considering their history bashing either of these guys comes off as foolish. Remember we can vote however we want. You can vote kayfabe or simply for whom you like better. Becca, for example, has clearly said she is not voting kayfabe. She voted HBK because she thinks he is the most entertaining wrestler and has enjoyed his matches more than anyone else’s. There’s nothing wrong with that. There really isn’t a wrong vote when it comes to these two. I personally like Shawn better. I have been more entertained by his matches than Taker’s matches. However, I have been voting kayfabe in this tournament and I’m not going to change that now. My vote goes to Taker. From a kayfabe perspective the mania wins can not be ignored.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Err, no. The Undertaker dominated their feud and the only time Michaels ever had any type of upper hand was when the numbers were in his favor via that interference you want to ignore.

You're trying to factor in storylines from different points of view when you need to take apart everything, and look directly at the match and what happened without accepting any outside storylines.

The Undertaker dominated every. single. ONE. He had every. single. one. WON! Shawn Michaels holds victories for two reasons, and two reasons only. Gimmick match = no DQ. Outside interference forced the outcome to one side.

I am factoring in the storyline because if you want to use takers wins at mania you have to factor in his streak aswell. If you want to use michaels wins you have to factor in why those interferences were there. Undertaker dominated because thats what his character is meant to do and shawns character is meant to be beaten down and then make a comeback.

Shawn Michaels has NEVER proven he can defeat the Undertaker, when it comes down to a one-on-one situation without any outside influence.

so whats to say he wouldnt have kicked out at these other ppvs and won?
So, boil it down.. and you still have a situation, where Shawn Michaels has never proven to be able to defeat the Undertaker in a one-on-one match.. and the Undertaker has proven he can defeat Shawn Michaels, be it at Mania or anywhere else - had interference not forced the finish.[/QUOTE]

Undertaker has never proven he could beat michaels 1v1 outside of mania and i know you can say he had michaels beat until interferences but Michaels has proven he can kick out of the tombstone(as taker as proven he can kick out of scm) so whats to say he wouldnt have kicked out at these other ppvs and won?

Because this is not a gimmick match, nor is outside interference allowed. While its not happening at Mania, I can show you plenty of times where the Undertaker's biggest moments of his career have come during events.. other than Wrestlemania.

You can not show me, where Shawn Michaels can win a one-on-one, regular match, without interference.

Do you mean a 1v1 match against taker or just a normal 1v1 match? Because if its not against taker then yes i can get you matchs he won without outside interference.

Once again, you can not prove to me how Michaels can win without the interference. I have shown you where & how Taker would've won, other than at Mania, against HBK.

You have shown me cases where it looked as if taker was going to win it was not always a garunteed thing.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Here's the deal, short and sweet. (Unless altered or changed) It has been said since the First Round in this tournament - any type of outside inteference "does not happen".

Why? I have no clue. I would assume its because they're basing one Superstar's true abilities against another's, without the influence of outside events altering the outcome. Or, you know, to screw with the heels of the tournament.

I am just curious, where did you read this rule. I read the rules that we could vote for anyone for any reason. I would think that would mean that if a wrestler was in a group in his prime he would have help. One of the points people have been making for Flair is that he would have the Horsemen.

i am not saying you are wrong but I was wondering where you got the info from.

 

[Vintage Nick]

Undertaker has never proven he could beat michaels 1v1 outside of mania and i know you can say he had michaels beat until interferences but Michaels has proven he can kick out of the tombstone(as taker as proven he can kick out of scm) so whats to say he wouldnt have kicked out at these other ppvs and won?

Have you not seen their Badd Blood match in the first ever Hell in a Cell? Michaels was running around like a chicken with its head cut off and for a big, big majority of the match Undertaker was slapping his ass around the ring. Undertaker would have won...if Kane never showed up. Shawn was on the verge of losing in that match.

 

[Supernova]

Trying to nullify The Undertaker's wins because they were at Wrestlemania is beyond stupid. I assume people are saying "it's UT he HAS to win at Mania". Guess what - all the results in all these matches you watch are pre-determined. HBK won the HIAC because "he HAD to" as much as The Undertaker had to win at Wrestlemania. I would have voted for The Undertaker for the overwhelming arguments in his favour anyway (even though I personally prefer HBK), but some of the idiotic arguments in HBK's favour have cemented it really.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Have you not seen their Badd Blood match in the first ever Hell in a Cell? Michaels was running around like a chicken with its head cut off and for a big, big majority of the match Undertaker was slapping his ass around the ring. Undertaker would have won...if Kane never showed up. Shawn was on the verge of losing in that match.

He would have won and thats a fact is it? No its not its an assumption. Undertakers character is a dominant one whereas michaels is an underdog one where he gets beaten around and then pulls off the win.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Trying to nullify The Undertaker's wins because they were at Wrestlemania is beyond stupid. I assume people are saying "it's UT he HAS to win at Mania". Guess what - all the results in all these matches you watch are pre-determined. HBK won the HIAC because "he HAD to" as much as The Undertaker had to win at Wrestlemania. I would have voted for The Undertaker for the overwhelming arguments in his favour anyway (even though I personally prefer HBK), but some of the idiotic arguments in HBK's favour have cemented it really.

I was nullifing them because pro taker arguements were nullifing Michaels wins because he had outside help. If michaels wins aren't allowed count then why are takers?

 

[The Brain]

I was nullifing them because pro taker arguements were nullifing Michaels wins because he had outside help. If michaels wins aren't allowed count then why are takers?

It's obvious. Outside help here would result in a disqualification. Michaels was able to get the outside help without penalty because there was no disqualification in hell in a cell and the casket match. Taker beat Michaels on his own twice. HBK's wins should count, but they're no where near as decisive as Taker's wins.

 

[Supernova]

The Undertaker's wins were under pretty much the exact rules that this match are under, that's why they're relevant Teddy Irving. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling though because I don't see how someone can fail to understand that.

 

[Teddy Irving]

It's obvious. Outside help here would result in a disqualification. Michaels was able to get the outside help without penalty because there was no disqualification in hell in a cell and the casket match. Taker beat Michaels on his own twice. HBK's wins should count, but they're no where near as decisive as Taker's wins.

If caught it would result in dq and until recently i didnt know interference wasnt allowed for some reason. Thats all i was trying to say is that shawns wins do count. As for takers wins they are at mania with his streak which this wont be.

 

[Big Sexy]

I was nullifing them because pro taker arguements were nullifing Michaels wins because he had outside help. If michaels wins aren't allowed count then why are takers?

Because they were clean. There is a huge difference between discrediting wins from interference and discrediting wins because of the venue.

 

[Teddy Irving]

The Undertaker's wins were under pretty much the exact rules that this match are under, that's why they're relevant Teddy Irving. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling though because I don't see how someone can fail to understand that.

They may be the rules this match is held under but just because shawns matchs were gimmick matchs he used what he was allowed to use to win, thats him using his intelligence(kayfabe), and that is not a shot at takers intelligence(kayfabe). But shawn can win matchs in this format aswell, he hasn't done so against taker because they only times he has faced him in these types of matchs has been at mania.

 

[JGlass]

They may be the rules this match is held under but just because shawns matchs were gimmick matchs he used what he was allowed to use to win, thats him using his intelligence(kayfabe), and that is not a shot at takers intelligence(kayfabe). But shawn can win matchs in this format aswell, he hasn't done so against taker because they only times he has faced him in these types of matchs has been at mania.

But there is no proof Shawn can beat Taker cleanly in a regular match, while there are two examples of proof that Taker can beat Shawn. While your argument that Taker only won because it was Wrestlemania is not entirely without merit, you have failed to show any reason for anyone to believe Shawn can beat Taker cleanly in a normal match, while numerous members have proven that Taker has beaten Shawn cleanly in normal matches, or would have beaten Shawn until outside interference.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I am just curious, where did you read this rule. I read the rules that we could vote for anyone for any reason. I would think that would mean that if a wrestler was in a group in his prime he would have help. One of the points people have been making for Flair is that he would have the Horsemen.

i am not saying you are wrong but I was wondering where you got the info from.

It was said multiple times during the Edge (opening round) match. And throughout last year's Tournament. I would naturally be lead to believe that the Tournament would be formed under the same 'rules' as each one before it. (Unless so explained, pre-hand.)

The biggest argument anyone could give for why Edge should/would lose was due to the fact that he wouldn't have anyone (Vickie, Edgeheads, etc, etc) helping him win his matches. That being said, the same would be considered for why Shawn Michaels wouldn't have DX, or Kane, helping him win here.

Shawn Michaels so-called prime, was also NOT solely during his 4 to 5-month DX run in 1997-1998. If it was, then by all means give him all the help he could ever need, because thats one hell of a short "prime".

All I can say is, the poll says "closed" and the Undertaker completely dominated in the votes. The right man won, be it as it may.