Triple H Or The Undertaker...Who's More Impressive In THEIR Match?

[Mitch Henessey]

The Undertaker compeated in the very first Hell In A Cell matchbackat Badd Blood in 1997. He lost to Shawn Michaels. This match was a classic,and I think it's better than their match from Wrestlemania of this year. Taker has been in ten HIAC matches, more than anybody in WWE history. Out of those ten matches, Taker won five.

Now when it comes to HIAC, Taker's is this match. Satan's Structure and The Devil's Playground are nicknames for HIAC that well suite Taker. The Deadman has put on some pretty damn good performances in HIAC matches. The only two I'm not so crazy about are the one he had with Boss Man at Wrestlemania XV, and the six-man from Armageddon 2000. Other than that. I can't really complain about any of Taker's HIAC matches.

Just like Taker did with Hell In A Cell, Triple H compeated in the very first Elimination Chamber. It was at Survivior Series 2002, where he lost the World Heavyweight Championship to HBK in an amazing finish between those two. Triple H would go on to win two more chamber matches as a heel. He retained the WHC at Summerslam 2003, and won the vacant WHC at New Year's Revolution 2005. As a face he defeated Jeff Hardy at No Way Out from last year for a #1 contendership spot at Wrestlemania 24. At this year's No Way Out, he defeated The Undertaker to become the WWE champion.

So this brings me to my question, who's been more Impressive in THEIR match? Triple H has been invloved in some pretty damn good finishes, and overall matches in The Elimination Chamber. Taker on the other hand has been involved in some amazing matches, and who can forget seeing Foley and HBK crashing through the announce tables.

I'm really torn on this, but I'm going to have to go with The Undertaker. Everytime he steps into Hell In A Cell,and slams the cage door shut, It gives me goosebumps. Taker's HIAC matches mith Brock Lesnar and HBK are enough for me to give him the edge over The Game.

Triple H has the most chamber wins with four. I liked HHH's matches in the EC as a face more than I did a heel. As a heel, he received help at Summerslam 2003 from Flair, and at New Year's Revolution he got help from Batista. I know it played to his character at the time, but his wins as face were just better to me. I loved the finish from this year's EC between him and Taker. It was a thrill-ride.

It didn't matter whether he was heel or face, Taker always seemed strong in his HIAC wins. So what's your pick for who's been more impressive in their match? The Undertaker in Hell In A Cell...Or Triple H in The Elimination Chamber?

 

[The Viper]

Yeah it's taker hands down. Like not even close, HHH is an ok wrestler but im just sick of him being pushed down our throats, In those EC matches he may have won, but there were plenty of people that looked better in those matches then he did, Taker looked good in every HIAC match! So Definitely taker

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

HHH was good in the 1st Elimination Chamber as he wrestled a majority of that match with a basically crushed larynx after RVD gave him a Five-Star Frog Splash. Say what you want to about the 2003 EC, but HHH showed classic heel brilliance. Goldberg dominated that match and HHH didn't get one punch in and used the sledgehammer to get the win. He was good in other elimination chambers as well.

Undertaker to me hasn't been all that impressive in Hell in a Cell. The only ones I give him are the 1997 Bad Blood and the 2005 Armageddon ones. I can arguably say that HHH has been better than Undertaker in Hell in a Cell matches as well. The No Way Out 2000 with Mick Foley was good as was his 2002 one with Chris Jericho. His matches with HBK and Batista were decent.

So across the board, I will have to say that HHH has been more impressive in the Elimination Chamber than Undertaker has been in Hell In A Cell.

 

[AjStyles]

I also would have to say Triple h, give credit where credit is due, yes I admit the phenomes longevity is impressive as well as his accolades championship wise and his 17-0 wrestlemania record, and doing stuff no one has ever done before, but Triple H can thrive in any environment

 

[mindgame218]

this a good and yet difficult question to answer. the two of them, alongside hbk, have put on possibly THE most memorable matches in wwe, IMO. hell, both of them have faced hbk in HIAC and both of those matches were amazing. i do believe HHH has won more of his HIAC matches compared to 'Taker, but i'm not taking anything away from his performance. Taker was, and still kind of is, one of the best big men to take to the air. i have never seen a near 7 ft. monster dive over the ropes the way he has, and probably won't see another big man do that again. HHH has dominated almost every EC match he's been in, and every other person making a post would maybe agree w/ that, tho a couple may have made that statement already. i guess, hands down, i'd have to go with Triple H.

 

[reddevil69]

Undertaker, no question about it. Triple H is nowhere near the caliber of worker he was prior to his quadriceps injuries...go back and watch the footage.In 1999 and 2000 he was totally off the charts. For the last 7 years he just does the same routine over and over. He is still a solid performer but he has regressed. Taker on the other hand does more action in the ring then he ever did for the first 7 years of his career. He does planchas, he falls off of ladders thru tables, he has no problem doing a high spot when it's needed.

HHH hasn't done a high spot in almost a decade. He never uses the ropes or barely leaves the ground. Your not the "game" or the best in the biz unless your style encompasses all the facets that make wrestling entertaining. Taker is capable of doing just about anything to make his matches memorable over the past 5 years, the man is 44 years old and weighs 300lbs, which makes it even more impressive.

Taker owns the cell match and he pretty much looks like a million bucks in every other match he has and it isn't because he's being carried by his opponent.

Taker will not only be remembered for the HIAC matches but also for Buried Alive and Casket Matches as well,both of which are exclusive to him only.

 

[TLC]

I've gotta say Triple H when it comes to Elimination Chamber's, He's always had a good showing when it comes to the EC, always seems to come out on top of it. Undertaker may "own" in the cell but he doesn't always come out top unlike HHH in the EC, only once he hasn't won and that was because Shawn Michaels was awesome and needed to win that match.

I'd also say HHH is better in hell in a cell as well having only lost 1 and that was to Batista whom was on a monster run that year.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Gotta go with Taker on this one for one simple reason:

When you think of HIAC what do you think of? The Undertaker, simple as that.

When you think of Elimination Chamber what do you think of? Hey, were having an Elimination Chamber match, yipee.

Taker has been in so many classic HIAC matches that you just think of him automatically when it's mentioned.

HHH has been in some good chamber matches, but he wasn't necessarily the reason they were good. Sure he always puts on a solid performance in the Elimination Chamber, but for me when I think of the Elimination Chamber I think of moments that happened with it like RVD doing the 5 star frog splash from the top, people getting thrown through chambers, blood, Goldberg ripping through everybody, things like that. I think of moments, not a specific person.

HIAC on the other hand has had so many great moments (much greater than anything that has happened in the Elimination Chamber) but when I think of HIAC, I still think of Taker, even more than Foley getting thrown off the cell.

 

[Rated_R_Edgehead]

Ok, regarding HIAC and EC, I would have to say Taker, he is an amazing wrestler, and terrific in all the HIAC matches he's been in.

Not regarding HIAC and EC, just basically all round wrestling matches, I would also have to say Taker, that man id just too damn good, and the great thing is, is that unlike HHH he isn't shoved down our throats the whole time, there are times when Taker isn't even on Smackdown, but you don't really need him to be, cause you know he'll turn up at some point, and you know that when he does show up its always good.

 

[classicviolence]

To answer the topic question: Taker by far has been the most impressive in the HIAC than HHH has been in the EC. Like others stated HHH, wasnt the main reasons why those EC matches were great. Take the 2008 RAW EC, Umaga and Jeff Hardy were really shining in that one,and even going back to Survivor Series 02, Y2J and RVD were off the charts in that one too.

But I will go on record saying as far as EC performers go: Goldberg and Y2J are my top 2 guys. The way Goldberg ran threw that match was unreal. Y2J's performances (02,03,05,08,09) were all excellent and with Jericho usually starting the chamber. Remember Mysterio and Jericho's crazy ass spot in this year's chamber?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Undertaker, no question about it. Triple H is nowhere near the caliber of worker he was prior to his quadriceps injuries...go back and watch the footage.In 1999 and 2000 he was totally off the charts. For the last 7 years he just does the same routine over and over. He is still a solid performer but he has regressed. Taker on the other hand does more action in the ring then he ever did for the first 7 years of his career. He does planchas, he falls off of ladders thru tables, he has no problem doing a high spot when it's needed.

HHH hasn't done a high spot in almost a decade. He never uses the ropes or barely leaves the ground. Your not the "game" or the best in the biz unless your style encompasses all the facets that make wrestling entertaining. Taker is capable of doing just about anything to make his matches memorable over the past 5 years, the man is 44 years old and weighs 300lbs, which makes it even more impressive.

Taker owns the cell match and he pretty much looks like a million bucks in every other match he has and it isn't because he's being carried by his opponent.

Why does HHH have to use the ropes and do high spots. He never did much of it before his quadricep injuries so there's no need to do it now. I think you don't have a clear understanding of what makes wrestling entertaining. Hogan and Austin never did high spots and they are considered two of the greatest of all time. I would say HHH owns Hell in a Cell more than the Undertaker because Taker has a losing record in Hell in a Cell matches. He lost to HBK, the six-man HIAC, Lesnar, and Batista. He's only beaten Big Boss Man, Mankind, and Edge.

HHH has beaten Jericho, Nash, HBK, Cactus Jack, the McMahons and Big Show. He's only lost in that six-man and to Batista.

 

[RatedRKJ]

I have to go with Taker on this one. Sure Triple H has more wins in both EC and HIAC, but Deadman is classic. It's not all about "who has more wins", it's "who is most likely to be dominant?" With Deadman, win or lose, he get's his point accross while making his opponent look good. With Hunter, it might as well be a squash match because you know he's likely to get the pin. (Batista so far being the exception).

Don't get me wrong, Hunter's the real deal. You just can't ignore 13 world title reigns, and not give the devil his due. But Taker's reputation for his utter brutality in HIAC surpasses everything Triple H has done in EC and the Cell. Let's look at the facts:


Taker in Hell In a Cell: He was in the first one at Badd Blood of '97, he would have won if Kane hadn't interferred Taker would have had it. Obviously we canNOT forget "the match that brought down the house", with Mankind. Nor when he literally hung Big Boss Man. And the classic he had with Brock Lesnar (One of my personal favorites really).

Hunter Elimination Chamber: Hell, he's almost won every single Chamber match he's been in. But, he wasn't the only one in the matches. Truthfully, I think that there are far more memorable participants who have been in the EC who made him look better. One that comes to mind was when Chris Benoit delivered the most INSANE flying headbutt of the top of the Chamber onto Hunter. So it's really the participants of the EC that make the match, not just one man. Although I will say that he has dominated every single one that he has been in.

So, simply put, Undertaker is the most impressive.

 

[SSJPhenom]

HHH was good in the 1st Elimination Chamber as he wrestled a majority of that match with a basically crushed larynx after RVD gave him a Five-Star Frog Splash. Say what you want to about the 2003 EC, but HHH showed classic heel brilliance. Goldberg dominated that match and HHH didn't get one punch in and used the sledgehammer to get the win. He was good in other elimination chambers as well.

Give you this.

Undertaker to me hasn't been all that impressive in Hell in a Cell. The only ones I give him are the 1997 Bad Blood and the 2005 Armageddon ones. I can arguably say that HHH has been better than Undertaker in Hell in a Cell matches as well. The No Way Out 2000 with Mick Foley was good as was his 2002 one with Chris Jericho. His matches with HBK and Batista were decent.

This is a joke right? You just want someone to say something, right? That has to be what it is. HHH, IMO, has had one, count it, ONE great HIAC match and that was against Mick Foley. His match with HBK was decent, but I have definitely seen better. His one with Batista was ok. Now the one with Chris Jericho is upon the worst ever of TRUE HIAC matches (True means that I am completely dismissing the bullshit at the HIAC PPV). Also, his HIAC with Kevin Nash was just fucking horrible to watch.

Now let's look at Undertaker. He was in the best HIAC ever, which was the first one. His HIAC with Mankind remains the most memorable one. He's had really good HIAC matches with numerous people like, Randy Orton, Brock Lesnar, Edge, Batista (which was better than Batista's HIAC with HHH). Undertaker is far and away better than HHH in the HIAC match. This really shouldn't be up for debate, but alas, it's LJL. He doesn't like anything from the older guys like 'Taker and HBK.

So across the board, I will have to say that HHH has been more impressive in the Elimination Chamber than Undertaker has been in Hell In A Cell.

HHH was only impressive in one Chamber match, count it, ONE! 'Taker has been impressive in numerous HIAC matches. Hell, 'Taker had a really impressive Chamber match in 2008 to go to WM 24 to face Edge. Honestly, I find ridiculous that you can say that 'Taker hasn't been impressive in the Cell.

Why does HHH have to use the ropes and do high spots. He never did much of it before his quadricep injuries so there's no need to do it now. I think you don't have a clear understanding of what makes wrestling entertaining. Hogan and Austin never did high spots and they are considered two of the greatest of all time. I would say HHH owns Hell in a Cell more than the Undertaker because Taker has a losing record in Hell in a Cell matches. He lost to HBK, the six-man HIAC, Lesnar, and Batista. He's only beaten Big Boss Man, Mankind, and Edge.

HHH has beaten Jericho, Nash, HBK, Cactus Jack, the McMahons and Big Show. He's only lost in that six-man and to Batista.

Who cares about wins or losses? We are talking about who looks better in the match and that is far and away 'Taker. His HIAC matches are far easier to watch than HHH's are.

HHH might have a better winning record in the match, but you do know wrestling is scripted right? Honestly, Trips has looked good in one Cell match, IMO and that was against Foley.

'Taker has only looked bad in one cell match and that was against CM Punk, who you left off of his win list. He also beat Orton in a very good Cell match.

 

[Blade]

Undertaker's best Hell in a Cell work is better than Triple H's best elimination chamber work. The matches against Shawn Michaels, Mankind and (arguably) Brock Lesnar are classics. The matches with Edge and Orton are also pretty good. But he's got some real shit in there too. Rememer Big Bossman? Yeah, exactly. That was a shit fest. Not to mention his Hell in a Cell with Batista bored me to tears, and the glorified squash against Punk.
My point is, Undertaker has had some awesome matches but Triple H has never had a bad match inside the Elimination Chamber. The storytelling that Triple H has done inside the Elimination Chamber has been brilliant most of the time. Could Shawn Michaels win the title one more time? Would we see Goldberg get his hands on Triple H? Would Orton finally get one up on Triple h? And so on...
Not to mention the great wrestling Triple H has done inside the chamber. He's had some great face offs in there, especially the more recent ones with Jeff Hardy and Undertaker.
You won't see a bad match is Trips is in the chamber.

 

[Paradox]

I have to agree with Blade here.

Phenom, (By the way, not sure if I like the name change, but whatever.) I see you points and yes, 'Taker has had some amazing points in the cell. He has made it his match. His match with HBK at Badd Blood was the best Hell in a Cell match that we've ever seen. He has created some great memories for all of us. There is no denying that, but. His match with Foley revolved around two spots. Two spots, yes it will be remembered by all of us, but how great of a match is? Not as great some of the other matches we've seen. Look, Hogan will always be remembered for slamming Andre, but was the match as a whole that great? No, it wasn't, we remember that spot because it was the first time we ever saw something like that, same thing here.

Now, you can't go and take 'Taker's the worst match out of the equation, which was his match with Punk. It was a terrible match and that will go on his record. Name a EC match which Triple h was in that was bad? As Blade said, he hasn't had one. While 'Taker has had some matches that weren't all that great. His match with Batista was worse than Trips match with him in the cell. His match with Orton was decent, but not spectacular. Triple h on the other hand in each match has had a classic moment. First Chamber, Michaels. 2nd, Goldberg, we all wanted to see him get destroyed and in the end it was Goldberg that got it. His next match Orton, we all wanted Orton to win somehow, but the game came through. 4th, A sweet showdown with Hardy, as this was suppose to be Hardy's time... (Well we saw how that went.) Then he had a great showdown with 'Taker this past NWO. Each match has been well done, where the same can't be said about 'Taker.

I have to go with Trips on this one.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I have to agree with Blade here.

Phenom, (By the way, not sure if I like the name change, but whatever.) I see you points and yes, 'Taker has had some amazing points in the cell. He has made it his match. His match with HBK at Badd Blood was the best Hell in a Cell match that we've ever seen. He has created some great memories for all of us. There is no denying that, but. His match with Foley revolved around two spots. Two spots, yes it will be remembered by all of us, but how great of a match is? Not as great some of the other matches we've seen. Look, Hogan will always be remembered for slamming Andre, but was the match as a whole that great? No, it wasn't, we remember that spot because it was the first time we ever saw something like that, same thing here.

Now, you can't go and take 'Taker's the worst match out of the equation, which was his match with Punk. It was a terrible match and that will go on his record. Name a EC match which Triple h was in that was bad? As Blade said, he hasn't had one. While 'Taker has had some matches that weren't all that great. His match with Batista was worse than Trips match with him in the cell. His match with Orton was decent, but not spectacular. Triple h on the other hand in each match has had a classic moment. First Chamber, Michaels. 2nd, Goldberg, we all wanted to see him get destroyed and in the end it was Goldberg that got it. His next match Orton, we all wanted Orton to win somehow, but the game came through. 4th, A sweet showdown with Hardy, as this was suppose to be Hardy's time... (Well we saw how that went.) Then he had a great showdown with 'Taker this past NWO. Each match has been well done, where the same can't be said about 'Taker.

I have to go with Trips on this one.

I don't think that it is really fair to compare a HIAC match, which is one on one to an EC match, which has six people in it. In all of those EC matches where HHH, supposedly, looked great, there were 5 other people that also looked great in the match. In the first EC match, I can remember Jericho's work for being outstanding and let's not forget that the greatest in ring performer of all time was in that match with HHH along with some other great performers.

Now, I never claimed 'Taker's HIAC match with Foley to be all that great, however, I just said it was the most memorable and that can't be denied. Bottom line is, if you take the best HIAC match which was 'Taker/HBK and compare it to the best EC match, which was the first one, the HIAC match was better, IMO.

'Taker's matches in the HIAC are next to legendary while HHH's matches in the EC are good, but can we go so far as to say that they are classics? I count three classics in the Cell for 'Taker and that's 'Taker/HBK, 'Taker/Foley (even if it is only remembered for two spots), and 'Taker/Lesnar. With some really good complimentary matches against Orton and Edge.

'Taker has to take this one.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Give you this.



This is a joke right? You just want someone to say something, right? That has to be what it is. HHH, IMO, has had one, count it, ONE great HIAC match and that was against Mick Foley. His match with HBK was decent, but I have definitely seen better. His one with Batista was ok. Now the one with Chris Jericho is upon the worst ever of TRUE HIAC matches (True means that I am completely dismissing the bullshit at the HIAC PPV). Also, his HIAC with Kevin Nash was just fucking horrible to watch.

Now let's look at Undertaker. He was in the best HIAC ever, which was the first one. His HIAC with Mankind remains the most memorable one. He's had really good HIAC matches with numerous people like, Randy Orton, Brock Lesnar, Edge, Batista (which was better than Batista's HIAC with HHH). Undertaker is far and away better than HHH in the HIAC match. This really shouldn't be up for debate, but alas, it's LJL. He doesn't like anything from the older guys like 'Taker and HBK.



HHH was only impressive in one Chamber match, count it, ONE! 'Taker has been impressive in numerous HIAC matches. Hell, 'Taker had a really impressive Chamber match in 2008 to go to WM 24 to face Edge. Honestly, I find ridiculous that you can say that 'Taker hasn't been impressive in the Cell.



Who cares about wins or losses? We are talking about who looks better in the match and that is far and away 'Taker. His HIAC matches are far easier to watch than HHH's are.

HHH might have a better winning record in the match, but you do know wrestling is scripted right? Honestly, Trips has looked good in one Cell match, IMO and that was against Foley.

'Taker has only looked bad in one cell match and that was against CM Punk, who you left off of his win list. He also beat Orton in a very good Cell match.

I never said that Taker wasn't impressive in the cell. I said that HHH was more impressive than Taker. There's a subtle difference there. HHH/Jericho is not one of the worst HIAC's ever. I would rate Undertaker/Batista, Undertaker/Bossman, and maybe Undertaker/Edge below HHH/Jericho. The only HIAC matches I liked that involved Taker was his against HBK and Orton and that's it.

HHH was impressive in the first one considering he got injured five minutes into the match and still went the distance. He was brilliant in his second one from a heel perspective after hitting Goldberg with a sledgehammer after Goldberg dominated. He was good in his faceoffs against Hardy and Undertaker. So I still stand by my argument that HHH has been more impressive in the chamber than Taker in the cell.

 

[Southwind]

Yeah I'm not a Triple H fan at all but I always felt that Hell in a cell was his match not the Undertakers. Wouldn't the Undertakers match be a casket match ?

HHH has had some impressive HIAC matches too, with Y2J Cactus Jack and HBK, even his match with Batista was pretty solid even though he lost there.

The Undertaker had an iconic moment in HIAC when he tossed Cactus Jack from the top of the cell. I only found his 2005 match with Orton to be top tier though, so I'd have to say HIAC is HHH's match more than the Undertakers.

I really don't think the Elimination Chamber is anybody's match either. It's six people against each-other not a one on one encounter so nobody "owns" that match.

TLC is Edge's match,, Hell In A Cell is Triple H's match, while the Casket Match is the Undertaker's.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

If we are talking standard matches, then I would go with Triple H. He is the all-around better performer, I would have to stay, He generally is more mobile in the ring, can do more risky spots, and has more endurance than Undertaker to pull off the lengthy matches when needed. Plus on a side note and in terms of crowd appeal, Triple H has a distinct advantage of working as either a Face or a Heel still to this day ... where as I don't think Undertaker would pull off a successful Heel anymore, if they would try it.

However, if we are talking about Hell in a Cell, I would have to clearly give the edge to The Undertaker. There are something about these matches were Taker simply rises to the occasion. The spots he pulls off are typically more impressive than Triple H in these matches. And he typically produces better ring psychology in making that connection with the audience, as opposed to Triple H, during these matches as well. This is no knock on Triple H, as he does great in these matches, but I have to give the edge to Taker for Hell in a Cell. I also think fans, in general, simply look forward to the match more so if Undertaker is involved in it, than Triple H. The audience seems to have associated Taker as being "Mr. Hell in a Cell" after all the matches over the years ... in addition to his famous match at King of the Ring with Mankind.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I never said that Taker wasn't impressive in the cell. I said that HHH was more impressive than Taker. There's a subtle difference there. HHH/Jericho is not one of the worst HIAC's ever. I would rate Undertaker/Batista, Undertaker/Bossman, and maybe Undertaker/Edge below HHH/Jericho. The only HIAC matches I liked that involved Taker was his against HBK and Orton and that's it.

I've always had respect for you because you are a brilliant poster, but seriously, come the fuck on! You only liked his HIAC matches with HBK and Orton? Wow. What about his great HIAC match with Lesnar? That was one of Lesnar's best matches ever. The big six man HIAC match? 'Taker had some major spots in there as well. His HIAC match with Foley wasn't a great all around match, but it is still the most memorable HIAC match ever. I will admit that 'Taker/Bossman was horrible, but it wasn't nearly as bad as HHH/Nash or HHH/Jericho. I have the HIAC DVD and I can't even stand to watch those matches. Undertaker/Batista was miles better than HHH/Batista and as far as in ring work goes, Batista's best feud was with 'Taker. Also, 'Taker/Edge HIAC was a great match and it was the last TRUE HIAC match. Do you have a grudge against 'Taker or something? If you say that those matches that I just named abover were horrible, I really don't want to know what your taste in good matches is. You seem to love everything that is complete and utter shit and rebuke anything that is decent, unless of course it is done by Cena.

HHH was impressive in the first one considering he got injured five minutes into the match and still went the distance. He was brilliant in his second one from a heel perspective after hitting Goldberg with a sledgehammer after Goldberg dominated. He was good in his faceoffs against Hardy and Undertaker. So I still stand by my argument that HHH has been more impressive in the chamber than Taker in the cell.

I'm sorry but no. You just can't compare the two. You have six people in an EC match. Where as HIAC matches are one on one. Just because HHH may have had a good 5 or 10 minutes against one person in the EC doesn't mean that he is impressive. BTW, the one with Goldberg was an absolute shit EC match as a whole. If you are going to give credit to HHH for using a weapon in what was really a horrible match, then your standards are fucked worse than I thought they were.

If we are talking standard matches, then I would go with Triple H. He is the all-around better performer, I would have to stay, He generally is more mobile in the ring, can do more risky spots, and has more endurance than Undertaker to pull off the lengthy matches when needed. Plus on a side note and in terms of crowd appeal, Triple H has a distinct advantage of working as either a Face or a Heel still to this day ... where as I don't think Undertaker would pull off a successful Heel anymore, if they would try it.

I'm sorry but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. 'Taker can move as well and is as agile as HHH any day of the week. Especially after HHH's injuries. What risky spots does HHH do? Does he do a suicide dive over the top rope? Don't worry, I'll wait for you to answer that one. 'Taker has been consistently putting on his best work in the last few years, where as HHH continues to decline. I'm sorry, but 'Taker is a way better performer than HHH is in the ring.

I will admit that 'Taker probably couldn't pull off a heel character at this point in his career, but that is because the fans just love him too much. The same could be said about HBK (except for when he is in Canada). As a face though, 'Taker is miles better than HHH. His matches are better and at least 'Taker doesn't come out and fail at being funny on the mic every week.

However, if we are talking about Hell in a Cell, I would have to clearly give the edge to The Undertaker. There are something about these matches were Taker simply rises to the occasion. The spots he pulls off are typically more impressive than Triple H in these matches. And he typically produces better ring psychology in making that connection with the audience, as opposed to Triple H, during these matches as well. This is no knock on Triple H, as he does great in these matches, but I have to give the edge to Taker for Hell in a Cell. I also think fans, in general, simply look forward to the match more so if Undertaker is involved in it, than Triple H. The audience seems to have associated Taker as being "Mr. Hell in a Cell" after all the matches over the years ... in addition to his famous match at King of the Ring with Mankind.

Agreed.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I've always had respect for you because you are a brilliant poster, but seriously, come the fuck on! You only liked his HIAC matches with HBK and Orton? Wow. What about his great HIAC match with Lesnar? That was one of Lesnar's best matches ever. The big six man HIAC match? 'Taker had some major spots in there as well. His HIAC match with Foley wasn't a great all around match, but it is still the most memorable HIAC match ever. I will admit that 'Taker/Bossman was horrible, but it wasn't nearly as bad as HHH/Nash or HHH/Jericho. I have the HIAC DVD and I can't even stand to watch those matches. Undertaker/Batista was miles better than HHH/Batista and as far as in ring work goes, Batista's best feud was with 'Taker. Also, 'Taker/Edge HIAC was a great match and it was the last TRUE HIAC match. Do you have a grudge against 'Taker or something? If you say that those matches that I just named abover were horrible, I really don't want to know what your taste in good matches is. You seem to love everything that is complete and utter shit and rebuke anything that is decent, unless of course it is done by Cena.

I think the match against Taker was good but not great and I wouldn't put it in the top 3 of Lesnar's best matches but it was decent. Taker/Bossman was absoulte shit for plenty of reasons. I would have been fine with the match still being at Wrestlemania but there was no need for the cell to be involved in anyway. The match itself was horrible and if it wasn't for the hanging spot, nobody would have remembered that match happened. At least HHH/Jericho and HHH/Nash had a feud building up and it dictated that the cell needed to be involved and those matches were better than Taker/Bossman. Both the Undertaker/Batista and HHH/Batista matches were nothing special so I consider them about equal. Undertaker/Edge being the last "true" HIAC match as you call it doesn't make it any more spectacular than it was. And for some reason you have to bring up Cena which doesn't pertain to this topic but if you want to keep making wrong assumptions about me then keep on doing it. In regards to that six-man match, all Taker did was throw Rikishi off the cell (which wasn't that impressive) and that was ten minutes before the match ended and Taker was still on top.

sorry but no. You just can't compare the two. You have six people in an EC match. Where as HIAC matches are one on one. Just because HHH may have had a good 5 or 10 minutes against one person in the EC doesn't mean that he is impressive. BTW, the one with Goldberg was an absolute shit EC match as a whole. If you are going to give credit to HHH for using a weapon in what was really a horrible match, then your standards are fucked worse than I thought they were.

So I guess HHH's first one wasn't that impressive since he spent the whole time in the chamber, most of it with a crushed larynx. The one at Summerslam in 2003 was the 2nd best one ever. You have to look at the match closely as why HHH was impressive. Goldberg dominated Jericho, HBK, and Orton for about half the match and the crowd thinks he is going to do the same to HHH. Goldberg gets a hold of him and beats up HHH so you think Goldberg is going to win and the crowd is pumped. HHH hits with the sledgehammer and pins Goldberg to retain the title. The crowd was dead silent after that point and that was a brilliant heel move by HHH.

I'm sorry but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. 'Taker can move as well and is as agile as HHH any day of the week. Especially after HHH's injuries. What risky spots does HHH do? Does he do a suicide dive over the top rope? Don't worry, I'll wait for you to answer that one. 'Taker has been consistently putting on his best work in the last few years, where as HHH continues to decline. I'm sorry, but 'Taker is a way better performer than HHH is in the ring.

I will admit that 'Taker probably couldn't pull off a heel character at this point in his career, but that is because the fans just love him too much. The same could be said about HBK (except for when he is in Canada). As a face though, 'Taker is miles better than HHH. His matches are better and at least 'Taker doesn't come out and fail at being funny on the mic every week.



Agreed.

All the risky spots does is Old School which gets countered half the time now and the suicide dive he does maybe twice a year. HHH doesn't need to validate himself by doing high spots. He's already validated himself. HHH was good early in his career and Taker was good late in his career so you can't really compare the two. If you torn both quadriceps, I'm sure you ring work will start to decline too.

 

[Big Sexy]

I think the match against Taker was good but not great and I wouldn't put it in the top 3 of Lesnar's best matches but it was decent. Taker/Bossman was absoulte shit for plenty of reasons. I would have been fine with the match still being at Wrestlemania but there was no need for the cell to be involved in anyway. The match itself was horrible and if it wasn't for the hanging spot, nobody would have remembered that match happened. At least HHH/Jericho and HHH/Nash had a feud building up and it dictated that the cell needed to be involved and those matches were better than Taker/Bossman. Both the Undertaker/Batista and HHH/Batista matches were nothing special so I consider them about equal. Undertaker/Edge being the last "true" HIAC match as you call it doesn't make it any more spectacular than it was. And for some reason you have to bring up Cena which doesn't pertain to this topic but if you want to keep making wrong assumptions about me then keep on doing it. In regards to that six-man match, all Taker did was throw Rikishi off the cell (which wasn't that impressive) and that was ten minutes before the match ended and Taker was still on top.

Taker's HIAC matches against HBK and Edge are enough to trump anything that Triple H has ever done in the elimination chamber. His match against Lesnar was also very underrated in my opinion. Not to mention the "holy shit" moments we got from the match against Foley and throwing Rikishi off the cell in the 6 man match.

So I guess HHH's first one wasn't that impressive since he spent the whole time in the chamber, most of it with a crushed larynx.

He spent almost the whole time in the chamber down in the corner after RVD fucked up his throat very early in the match. Triple H didn't really do shit until late in the match.

The one at Summerslam in 2003 was the 2nd best one ever. You have to look at the match closely as why HHH was impressive. Goldberg dominated Jericho, HBK, and Orton for about half the match and the crowd thinks he is going to do the same to HHH. Goldberg gets a hold of him and beats up HHH so you think Goldberg is going to win and the crowd is pumped. HHH hits with the sledgehammer and pins Goldberg to retain the title. The crowd was dead silent after that point and that was a brilliant heel move by HHH.

How was Triple H impressive in that match? Yes it was a good heel move as you said but that doesn't make his performance in the match impressive. If I remember correctly Triple H was injured going into the match and they basically just had him not do anything so he could make it to the next pay per view in one piece.

 

[JBK2008]

In the EC matches, a lot of guys looked better than Triple H. That said, I'm going with Undertaker in the HIAC matches all the way. Face or heel, he always put up a hell of a fight and always put on a good match. It does suck that Undertaker hasn't won most of those matches he was in since it has deemed the devils playground and all. Anyway, Undertaker is more impressive.

 

[Freddy4190]

Undertaker looked like shit at the HIAC PPV. It was sad actually. Triple H just because he's still a beast, he can still perform just as well as he did back in the day, and he always sucked you into the EC matches. Everything he did was so like.. fucking great. He sold everything well, he made you believe the words spewed out during the build up.. "The most demonic structure.." etcetc. Yeah, Undertaker's done that too. But he lost a whole lot of points in this HIAC match. If I HAD to pick.. it'd be Triple H by a nose.. baha.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Taker's HIAC matches against HBK and Edge are enough to trump anything that Triple H has ever done in the elimination chamber. His match against Lesnar was also very underrated in my opinion. Not to mention the "holy shit" moments we got from the match against Foley and throwing Rikishi off the cell in the 6 man match.

Two spots in a match may make it memorable, but it doesn't make it great. They didn't want another Foley situation so they had to conveniently pull up a truck with all that padding so Rikishi wouldn't get seriously hurt. It was more of a shove off the cell than anything.

He spent almost the whole time in the chamber down in the corner after RVD fucked up his throat very early in the match. Triple H didn't really do shit until late in the match.

He still got through the match though. Even though he came out alright a week later, I wish somebody would have pinned him right there because you don't know how serious that injury could have gotten.

How was Triple H impressive in that match? Yes it was a good heel move as you said but that doesn't make his performance in the match impressive. If I remember correctly Triple H was injured going into the match and they basically just had him not do anything so he could make it to the next pay per view in one piece.

I know he was injured so I wonder why didn't they let him drop the title to Goldberg then as opposed to a month later. It wouldn't have hurt HHH in anyway and they still feuded for the title the rest of the year so there's not any difference.