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

[SSJPhenom]

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.

You're right! Edge/'Taker HIAC being the last true HIAC match doesn't make it anymore spectacular. The match itself was fucking spectacular. It was an all around decent 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. 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.

Sure the first EC match was impressive, but it wasn't impressive more so on HHH's part. He was surrounded by outstanding talent in that match and the only thing that makes that match stick out in my mind, honestly, is the fact that HBK won the title. His EC match with Goldberg was a horrible performance. He was out of the match for most of the damn thing. If you are going to say that, that was a great performance because of one spot from HHH then you have to say that 'Taker's performance against Foley was outstanding for having only two spots in the entire match.

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.

So. I was replying to the fact that Sidious said that HHH does more risky spots than 'Taker and this certainly isn't true. It also isn't true that HHH can move or perform better than 'Taker.

 

[reddevil69]

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.

I know quite well what makes wrestling entertaining.The difference with HHH and Hogan and Austin is those two didn't go around saying they were the absolute best in the business as their gimmick. HHH says he's the Game, the ultimate student of wrestling yet he can't perform or execute a move from the top rope? Then he's not the best athlete or wrestler in the business is he? JR goes on about how he reminds him of Harley Race all the time, well sorry, Race was not the best wrestler to step in a ring at any point in history.

Taker does things that make other big men cringe and continues to take it to another level at 44 years old.Just when you think you've seen it all from him, he does something in a big match situation that blows fans away. That is why after 19 years he is still the top guy, RAW went of the air at MSG, the barometer audience of WWE, their hometown arena, the mecca of wrestling, two nights ago and Taker was left standing in the ring and the show went off the air with him being the centre of attention...not HBK, not Cena, not Show, not Jericho, and not HHH.

Hunter is good, he's not Undertaker and never will be. win loss in the cell doesn't have anything to do with it, when people think of the cell they think of Undertaker...he's been in more than anyone.

and you forgot to mention Taker also defeated Orton in the cell at Armageddon 2005 and he beat Punk last month which makes five cell victory's...if you're going to comment on it at least get your facts right bro'.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I know quite well what makes wrestling entertaining.The difference with HHH and Hogan and Austin is those two didn't go around saying they were the absolute best in the business as their gimmick. HHH says he's the Game, the ultimate student of wrestling yet he can't perform or execute a move from the top rope? Then he's not the best athlete or wrestler in the business is he? JR goes on about how he reminds him of Harley Race all the time, well sorry, Race was not the best wrestler to step in a ring at any point in history.

Taker does things that make other big men cringe and continues to take it to another level at 44 years old.Just when you think you've seen it all from him, he does something in a big match situation that blows fans away. That is why after 19 years he is still the top guy, RAW went of the air at MSG, the barometer audience of WWE, their hometown arena, the mecca of wrestling, two nights ago and Taker was left standing in the ring and the show went off the air with him being the centre of attention...not HBK, not Cena, not Show, not Jericho, and not HHH.

Hunter is good, he's not Undertaker and never will be. win loss in the cell doesn't have anything to do with it, when people think of the cell they think of Undertaker...he's been in more than anyone.

and you forgot to mention Taker also defeated Orton in the cell at Armageddon 2005 and he beat Punk last month which makes five cell victory's...if you're going to comment on it at least get your facts right bro'.

How do you know he can't execute or perform a move from the top rope? Just because he doesn't do it, doesn't mean he can't. Did Hogan ever need to go to the top rope to win matches? No. What happened every time Ric Flair went to the top rope? You know the answer to that one. HHH does not need to go to the top rope to validate himself as being one of the best in the business and would be silly to think that he needs to.

HHH doesn't need to be Undertaker. Undertaker has never been the top guy in the company. At some point in time, there was always one or two guys ahead of Taker and that is just fine with me.

I still stand by my claim that HHH has been more impressive in EC then Taker in the Cell and it will stay that way.

 

[reddevil69]

How do you know he can't execute or perform a move from the top rope? Just because he doesn't do it, doesn't mean he can't. Did Hogan ever need to go to the top rope to win matches? No. What happened every time Ric Flair went to the top rope? You know the answer to that one. HHH does not need to go to the top rope to validate himself as being one of the best in the business and would be silly to think that he needs to.

HHH doesn't need to be Undertaker. Undertaker has never been the top guy in the company. At some point in time, there was always one or two guys ahead of Taker and that is just fine with me.

I still stand by my claim that HHH has been more impressive in EC then Taker in the Cell and it will stay that way.

well if he can execute a top rope move and he isn't then that makes him a lazy worker...how can you say you are the absolute best in the industry and not try and do something different and go out and execute fresh manoeuvers if you have the ability to?...Taker had added all kinds of different moves to his arsenal over the years.

as far as you comparing HHH's spots to Taker, let's see HHH do a leg drop from the top rope onto the announce table, let's see him do a plancha, fall off a ladder in the ring thru tables outside the ring, I could go on...Taker takes more risks and he is in a position where he certainly does not have to anymore. HHH tore his quads yes, but Taker tore his pectorals in 1999 and missed 8 months, he's had elbow problems for the past 10 years and wears a brace or tensor on his left elbow, his hips by his own admission are "like powdered glass"...his knees are completely shot and he is carrying about 40 pounds more weight than HHH and he still goes out and works like there is nothing wrong with him.

Taker didn't need to be as good early in his career because he was playing the role of a Frankenstein monster and worked mainly with big lumbering giants like Kamala,Gonzales,Bundy,Yokozuna,Nailz,Berserker,Mabel,Diesel,Adam Bomb and guys like Warrior and Hogan who were not exactly gymnasts in the ring. The point is that when he was given the opportunity in 1996 to work with Bret Hart and Mankind, he was already 8 years in the biz, six with WWF, and was already dealing with nagging injuries and he still stepped it up and from there has continued to excel and up his level of performance to be able to hang in the ring with guys like Angle and Benoit, Lesnar and Orton, Edge and Kennedy, and guys like HBK who can still pull out an off the chart performance when called upon like Taker.

HHH's best days are far behind him, I can't recall a match he's had in the last six years, since he wrestled HBK in that fantastic RAW main event in 2003 that anyone really talks about or was blown away by. People still talk about Taker vs. Lesnar in 2002, Taker/Angle's matches in 2002, 2003 and especially the No Way Out match from 2006 are still talked about as being some of the best bouts from that time. The general feeling from fans,journalists and even the wrestlers backstage was that Taker and Batista stole the show at WM23 and that feud was hot for every match they had thereafter. His feud with Kennedy over three PPV's had fans buzzing and Kennedy came out looking the better for it, he screwed his push up on his own by being an idiot.His feud with Orton totally restored Orton's credibilty after HHH and Evolution completely squashed his push in Sept. 2004 and he was in limbo for nearly six months. His feud with Edge was also great and both the TLC match and the cell match had fans buzzing.

The finish to the 1997 Rumble is hailed as the best one ever with the exception of the 1992 Rumble....Taker and Shawn being the last two men and the mini-match they had to the finish blew fans away everywhere, that was the catalyst for this years WM25 match between the two, Shawn has said that after that they knew they had to have one more match and that Vince said to be patient and let it stew for awhile and to save it up for WM25....there are hardly any long term booking plans in WWE today, in that case they all knew two years ahead of time what the plan was for WM25 because Vince knew that there was not another match he could book worthy of living up to the hype of the silver anniversary of Mania...does anybody even remember HHH's match with Orton that night?

All these I've mentioned have come in the last six years or so, when Taker's at a point where he should be slowing down and yet he's still delivering classic moments. Anyone else would be dogging it and they have...look at Hogan,Savage,Scott Steiner,Piper,Hennig,Scott Hall, and even Sting...they all got lazy when they hit their early forties, watch their matches in WCW, they are all mere shells of what they were, not that Hogan was ever a great ring worker but he still hustled when he had to in the 80's.

Taker is still making history, as he did at this years Mania with HBK, Hunter's best days are history,he is just coasting on his rep and riding the DX wave...he's a good hand, no longer a great one like he was in 2000 when he stepped it up huge.

and sorry, Taker is the top guy right now, that is why he was the last thing you saw when RAW went off the air on Monday, while the other top guys lay on the floor. Taker isn't even a RAW wrestler he's on Smackdown.

and I agree with Phenom, the EC matches were great because HHH was in there with five other tremendous workers, he didn't carry those on his own by any means....people talked about HBK the next day and Goldberg the next day, not Triple H.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

well if he can execute a top rope move and he isn't then that makes him a lazy worker...how can you say you are the absolute best in the industry and not try and do something different and go out and execute fresh manoeuvers if you have the ability to?...Taker had added all kinds of different moves to his arsenal over the years.

as far as you comparing HHH's spots to Taker, let's see HHH do a leg drop from the top rope onto the announce table, let's see him do a plancha, fall off a ladder in the ring thru tables outside the ring, I could go on...Taker takes more risks and he is in a position where he certainly does not have to anymore. HHH tore his quads yes, but Taker tore his pectorals in 1999 and missed 8 months, he's had elbow problems for the past 10 years and wears a brace or tensor on his left elbow, his hips by his own admission are "like powdered glass"...his knees are completely shot and he is carrying about 40 pounds more weight than HHH and he still goes out and works like there is nothing wrong with him.

Taker didn't need to be as good early in his career because he was playing the role of a Frankenstein monster and worked mainly with big lumbering giants like Kamala,Gonzales,Bundy,Yokozuna,Nailz,Berserker,Mabel,Diesel,Adam Bomb and guys like Warrior and Hogan who were not exactly gymnasts in the ring. The point is that when he was given the opportunity in 1996 to work with Bret Hart and Mankind, he was already 8 years in the biz, six with WWF, and was already dealing with nagging injuries and he still stepped it up and from there has continued to excel and up his level of performance to be able to hang in the ring with guys like Angle and Benoit, Lesnar and Orton, Edge and Kennedy, and guys like HBK who can still pull out an off the chart performance when called upon like Taker.

HHH's best days are far behind him, I can't recall a match he's had in the last six years, since he wrestled HBK in that fantastic RAW main event in 2003 that anyone really talks about or was blown away by. People still talk about Taker vs. Lesnar in 2002, Taker/Angle's matches in 2002, 2003 and especially the No Way Out match from 2006 are still talked about as being some of the best bouts from that time. The general feeling from fans,journalists and even the wrestlers backstage was that Taker and Batista stole the show at WM23 and that feud was hot for every match they had thereafter. His feud with Kennedy over three PPV's had fans buzzing and Kennedy came out looking the better for it, he screwed his push up on his own by being an idiot.His feud with Orton totally restored Orton's credibilty after HHH and Evolution completely squashed his push in Sept. 2004 and he was in limbo for nearly six months. His feud with Edge was also great and both the TLC match and the cell match had fans buzzing.

The finish to the 1997 Rumble is hailed as the best one ever with the exception of the 1992 Rumble....Taker and Shawn being the last two men and the mini-match they had to the finish blew fans away everywhere, that was the catalyst for this years WM25 match between the two, Shawn has said that after that they knew they had to have one more match and that Vince said to be patient and let it stew for awhile and to save it up for WM25....there are hardly any long term booking plans in WWE today, in that case they all knew two years ahead of time what the plan was for WM25 because Vince knew that there was not another match he could book worthy of living up to the hype of the silver anniversary of Mania...does anybody even remember HHH's match with Orton that night?

All these I've mentioned have come in the last six years or so, when Taker's at a point where he should be slowing down and yet he's still delivering classic moments. Anyone else would be dogging it and they have...look at Hogan,Savage,Scott Steiner,Piper,Hennig,Scott Hall, and even Sting...they all got lazy when they hit their early forties, watch their matches in WCW, they are all mere shells of what they were, not that Hogan was ever a great ring worker but he still hustled when he had to in the 80's.

Taker is still making history, as he did at this years Mania with HBK, Hunter's best days are history,he is just coasting on his rep and riding the DX wave...he's a good hand, no longer a great one like he was in 2000 when he stepped it up huge.

and sorry, Taker is the top guy right now, that is why he was the last thing you saw when RAW went off the air on Monday, while the other top guys lay on the floor. Taker isn't even a RAW wrestler he's on Smackdown.

and I agree with Phenom, the EC matches were great because HHH was in there with five other tremendous workers, he didn't carry those on his own by any means....people talked about HBK the next day and Goldberg the next day, not Triple H.

Is it so important to you that HHH has to do a high spot just to please you? I'm sure he's wondering somewhere saying to himself, "Hmmmm. Maybe I need to do a high spot just to please this one person. Forget if I get injured. I have to please him. I have to do this for him." Fat chance that is going to happen. HHH has two quadricep injuries so there's no need for him go to the top rope but that doesn't please you. What happens if he goes to the top rope and gets injured, huh?

I don't believe Taker and Angle had one match in 2002 or 2003 and I did like their 2006 match. HHH was injured and had to miss Wrestlemania 23 so you can't compare anything concern that. Austin did the same damn thing concerning his in-ring work while in the WWF but you don't hear criticisms about that so why should we about HHH.

Them talking about Goldberg and HBK had something to do with HHH because it was all about HHH. Goldberg was this close to winning and then it all goes away with one shot of the sledgehammer. Besides some matches with Orton and Edge, Undertaker hasn't been that great as everybody thinks he is and I will even admit that.

Just because Taker ended the show on top doesn't mean he's the top guy. As long as RAW is the #1 show over Smackdown, whoever is the champion is the top guy and that is Cena. Undertaker has never and will never be the top guy and history proves that. HBK, Hart, and Hogan were over him at the beginning of his career. HHH, Rock, and Austin were over him at the middle of the career. Now, Cena and Edge were over him at the latter stages of his career. It doesn't hurt Undertaker's resume in any way. It is what it is.

 

[reddevil69]

Is it so important to you that HHH has to do a high spot just to please you? I'm sure he's wondering somewhere saying to himself, "Hmmmm. Maybe I need to do a high spot just to please this one person. Forget if I get injured. I have to please him. I have to do this for him." Fat chance that is going to happen. HHH has two quadricep injuries so there's no need for him go to the top rope but that doesn't please you. What happens if he goes to the top rope and gets injured, huh?

I don't believe Taker and Angle had one match in 2002 or 2003 and I did like their 2006 match. HHH was injured and had to miss Wrestlemania 23 so you can't compare anything concern that. Austin did the same damn thing concerning his in-ring work while in the WWF but you don't hear criticisms about that so why should we about HHH.

Them talking about Goldberg and HBK had something to do with HHH because it was all about HHH. Goldberg was this close to winning and then it all goes away with one shot of the sledgehammer. Besides some matches with Orton and Edge, Undertaker hasn't been that great as everybody thinks he is and I will even admit that.

Just because Taker ended the show on top doesn't mean he's the top guy. As long as RAW is the #1 show over Smackdown, whoever is the champion is the top guy and that is Cena. Undertaker has never and will never be the top guy and history proves that. HBK, Hart, and Hogan were over him at the beginning of his career. HHH, Rock, and Austin were over him at the middle of the career. Now, Cena and Edge were over him at the latter stages of his career. It doesn't hurt Undertaker's resume in any way. It is what it is.

that's funny because the match from 2003 with Angle is on the Tombstone dvd,they even interview Angle about it and he says it was the best match of his career up to that point and I have the one from 2002 when Taker was undisputed champion and fought Angle in the infamous tapout/pinfall finish...once again get your facts before you post.

and it's not about pleasing one fan, it's about pleasing all fans and leaving them with some great historic moments and matches which is something HHH has not done for quite some time now...the question is not whether he should do it to please me, it's "I call myself the best this industry has to offer, maybe I should crank it up a notch and prove it". A top baseball player doesn't say to himself "I know i am quite capable of hitting a home run tonight off of this particular pitcher, but fuck it i'll just bunt instead"

If he is athletically capable and his health permits him to do it, he's cheating the fans if he does not give it his all out there especially when it's at a PPV.

and HHH missed WM23 and it outdrew the previous year and the following year's buyrates, both of which HHH was featured on, so the one without him on the card was more successful...what that does that tell you? It tells me that whether he is there or not it doesn't really make or break the card.

and HBK was never over Taker...read Shawns book and Bret's book....both of them say Taker was making more than them in the 1990's...Taker sold more merch than Shawn and he was a far bigger draw outside the USA...the facts are on paper to prove it...Shawn says in his book that the only guy he told Vince that he didn't have a problem getting paid more than him in 1996 was Taker because he deserved it...Taker right now makes more in his guaranteed contract than both Cena and HBK...Vince isn't paying him because he likes him, he's paying him because he's the top guy and earns the money he gets offered. There is a reason that the last three manias in a row Taker's match got the biggest reaction from the fans....the main factor is Taker was in all three of them.

I have Kevin Nash's shoot dvd and he even says that in 1995 when he was champ, and in those days the champ was the highest paid guy period, that he found out Taker was making more than him without the belt...why do you think that is? He drew more money without a belt than Bret,Nash and Shawn did with the belt, that's why he never gave a shit about having the belt all those years.

and Edge was never nor will he ever be a bigger draw than Taker... please stop huffing gas...how old are you twelve?

Taker is on Smackdown to give smackdown a top star to promote, not because he doesn't draw.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

that's funny because the match from 2003 with Angle is on the Tombstone dvd,they even interview Angle about it and he says it was the best match of his career up to that point and I have the one from 2002 when Taker was undisputed champion and fought Angle in the infamous tapout/pinfall finish...once again get your facts before you post.

and it's not about pleasing one fan, it's about pleasing all fans and leaving them with some great historic moments and matches which is something HHH has not done for quite some time now...the question is not whether he should do it to please me, it's "I call myself the best this industry has to offer, maybe I should crank it up a notch and prove it". A top baseball player doesn't say to himself "I know i am quite capable of hitting a home run tonight off of this particular pitcher, but fuck it i'll just bunt instead"

If he is athletically capable and his health permits him to do it, he's cheating the fans if he does not give it his all out there especially when it's at a PPV.

and HHH missed WM23 and it outdrew the previous year and the following year's buyrates, both of which HHH was featured on, so the one without him on the card was more successful...what that does that tell you? It tells me that whether he is there or not it doesn't really make or break the card.

and HBK was never over Taker...read Shawns book and Bret's book....both of them say Taker was making more than them in the 1990's...Taker sold more merch than Shawn and he was a far bigger draw outside the USA...the facts are on paper to prove it...Shawn says in his book that the only guy he told Vince that he didn't have a problem getting paid more than him in 1996 was Taker because he deserved it...Taker right now makes more in his guaranteed contract than both Cena and HBK...Vince isn't paying him because he likes him, he's paying him because he's the top guy and earns the money he gets offered. There is a reason that the last three manias in a row Taker's match got the biggest reaction from the fans....the main factor is Taker was in all three of them.

I have Kevin Nash's shoot dvd and he even says that in 1995 when he was champ, and in those days the champ was the highest paid guy period, that he found out Taker was making more than him without the belt...why do you think that is? He drew more money without a belt than Bret,Nash and Shawn did with the belt, that's why he never gave a shit about having the belt all those years.

and Edge was never nor will he ever be a bigger draw than Taker... please stop huffing gas...how old are you twelve?

Taker is on Smackdown to give smackdown a top star to promote, not because he doesn't draw.

Did I state that Angle never had a match with Undertaker in 2003 as fact? No I didn't. That's why I said the words "I don't believe". Undertaker making more money than Cena and HBK doesn't mean he's the top guy. It means he is making more money, nothing more and nothing less. It's a wonder too since he only works like half the year anymore.

The only times Undertaker has really been a draw these days is whether it is Wrestlemania or whenever he comes back for the 3439th time.

How many stars has Undertaker promoted since he's been on Smackdown? Sure Kennedy and Orton have had success after facing the Undertaker but a couple of months later they were back in the mid-card.

P.S. Never good to flame somebody but don't worry kid, you'll learn soon enough.

 

[reddevil69]

Did I state that Angle never had a match with Undertaker in 2003 as fact? No I didn't. That's why I said the words "I don't believe". Undertaker making more money than Cena and HBK doesn't mean he's the top guy. It means he is making more money, nothing more and nothing less. It's a wonder too since he only works like half the year anymore.

The only times Undertaker has really been a draw these days is whether it is Wrestlemania or whenever he comes back for the 3439th time.

How many stars has Undertaker promoted since he's been on Smackdown? Sure Kennedy and Orton have had success after facing the Undertaker but a couple of months later they were back in the mid-card.

P.S. Never good to flame somebody but don't worry kid, you'll learn soon enough.

I didn't flame you, I asked you a question....and quit splitting hairs, you said "I don't believe" because you were trying to prove your point, which you were unable to....if you are so educated on wrestling, do your homework, learn your facts and then you can post your opinion...."because I think so" is not an acceptable response from an adult.

as for stars Taker's made let's start with Mankind who says in his book that he doesn't know where his career would have gone if Taker was a selfish asshole...Taker could have buried him, instead he made him into one of the biggest stars in the company.

he got Lesnar over as monster after being left in a pool of blood in the HIAC in 2002.

He got Orton over again after being in limbo.

He took Kennedy to the next level.

He raised Batistas game after he came back in 2006 and was being bashed universally for having shitty matches up until working with Taker.

How many stars has HHH made in the last 8 years? I'll tell you...one: Batista....he buried Orton, buried Booker T and when he worked with Orton again,Orton was on top....

he put over Cena after Cena was a huge star, all this after saying Cena was a lousy wrestler in all of his promos leading to the match...so from a kayfabe standpoint, HHH got beat by a crappy wrestler....what does that make him? That's not how you sell a PPV match.

he worked repeatedly with his buddies Flair and HBK, and when Benoit was champ in 2004, RAW still centered around HHH and his feud with HBK

Taker worked with mid-carders almost exclusively 85% of the time from 2002 until 2006 and didn't touch a title belt from July 2002 until March 2007...Hunter was the center of attention as WHC from Sept. 2002 until April.2005, plugging up 10 segments a week on RAW, and never worked with mid card talent hardly ever.

once again, you have no facts to prove your point....read the reviews of Smackdown tapings on this very site, almost always they state that the biggest pop goes to Taker...who cares if he's around half the time, he draws when he is around and that's what Vince cares about: making money. Taker's earned a part time schedule and if it is going to allow him to rest his injuries and come fresh for 6 PPV's a year and entertain fans that is better than him running himself into the ground for a full year and then having to retire...I want him to be around a few more years and their are millions of fans worldwide that feel the same way...that's why the WWE's tour overseas this past month was called "The Undertaker World Tour"....

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I didn't flame you, I asked you a question....and quit splitting hairs, you said "I don't believe" because you were trying to prove your point, which you were unable to.

as for stars Taker's made let's start with Mankind who says in his book that he doesn't know where his career would have gone if Taker was a selfish asshole...Taker could have buried him, instead he made him into one of the biggest stars in the company.

he got Lesnar over as monster after being left in a pool of blood in the HIAC in 2002.

He got Orton over again after being in limbo.

He took Kennedy to the next level.

He raised Batistas game after he came back in 2006 and was being bashed universally for having shitty matches up until working with Taker.

How many stars has HHH made in the last 8 years? I'll tell you...one: Batista....he buried Orton, buried Booker T and when he worked with Orton again,Orton was on top....

he put over Cena after Cena was a huge star, all this after saying Cena was a lousy wrestler in all of his promos leading to the match...so from a kayfabe standpoint, HHH got beat by a crappy wrestler....what does that make him? That's not how you sell a PPV match.

Taker worked with mid-carders almost exclusively 85% of the time from 2002 until 2006 and didn't touch a title belt from July 2002 until March 2007...Hunter was the center of attention as WHC from Sept. 2002 until April.2005, plugging up 10 segments a week on RAW, and nevr worked with mid card talent hardly ever.

These few posts are getting off-topic and this will be the last one I'll respond to on this thread. Me and you can create a thread to keep on debating. I'm doing this so me or you won't get an infraction.

Mankind helped Undertaker just as much as Undertaker helped Mankind. Taker was shit his first five or six years as the compnay. He was having horrible matches with horrible opponents until Mankind came along. He made Taker work at a faster pace and it benefitted Taker because if Mankind wasn't there, who knows how Taker would be now?

Lesnar was billed as a monster when he smeared Hogan's blood across his chest. Undertaker's selfishness led to that draw between him and Lesnar and Undertaker tried to make up for it in that Hell in a Cell match with a broken hand. Take that how you want it but that's the way I see it. Kennedy got one match against Batista for the title, won MITB, and then got injured. Poor Kennedy.

HHH put over Batista and Benoit. Orton wasn't ready to be an main event player and that is hardly HHH's fault. They wanted to put the belt on Orton because Lesnar left four months earlier.

 

[reddevil69]

These few posts are getting off-topic and this will be the last one I'll respond to on this thread. Me and you can create a thread to keep on debating. I'm doing this so me or you won't get an infraction.

Mankind helped Undertaker just as much as Undertaker helped Mankind. Taker was shit his first five or six years as the compnay. He was having horrible matches with horrible opponents until Mankind came along. He made Taker work at a faster pace and it benefitted Taker because if Mankind wasn't there, who knows how Taker would be now?

Lesnar was billed as a monster when he smeared Hogan's blood across his chest. Undertaker's selfishness led to that draw between him and Lesnar and Undertaker tried to make up for it in that Hell in a Cell match with a broken hand. Take that how you want it but that's the way I see it. Kennedy got one match against Batista for the title, won MITB, and then got injured. Poor Kennedy.

HHH put over Batista and Benoit. Orton wasn't ready to be an main event player and that is hardly HHH's fault. They wanted to put the belt on Orton because Lesnar left four months earlier.

ok you win. Undertaker was not a huge star for the WWF from 1990 until 1996... because nobody bought his merchandise, he never headlined PPV's and his first six years will always be remembered on par with guys like Max Moon and Ludvig Borga.

if anyone believes any of that, I have a nice piece of swampland I'd like to sell you.

 

[Big Sexy]

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.

It was still memorable, and even if you take those matches out of it Taker is still more impressive. His matches against HBK and Edge in the cell were better then Triple H ever did in the chamber.

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.

I commend him for finishing the match but that doesn't change the fact that he really didn't do much at all in that match. He got his ass kicked by RVD, beat up HBK with help from Jericho, and then got beat. He spent the majority of the much down in the corener not doing anything.

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.

I'm not exactly sure why either. They probably wanted Goldberg to get the win in a one on one match rather then a match with 4 other guys.

 

[rageahollic33]

Man this is a tough one. You have Undertaker who has been more hell in a cell matches than anyone. Then you got Triple H who has won more Elimination chamber matches than anyone. Undertaker has been in great hell in a cell matches.Like against Mankind in the king of the ring. HHH has been in great elimination chamber matches like the one at survivor series 2002. but everyone has there own match weather its jeff hardy and his ladder matches , Cm Punk in money in the bank, or Edge in his TLC matches. so back to the topic the wrestler who is the best in his match is HHH. Because he has won more in both matches.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Why in the blue hell are you even making this comparison? Jesus, it's not even the same match stipulations. Why don't we compare how impressive Wayne Rooney is at football, with how impressive Tiger Woods is at golf while we're at it?

You're talking about the 2 men who have been in more HIAC matches than anyone else in the history of the company since the match's inception. Since 2000 up until 2009, you did not see a HIAC match that didn't have either HHH or the Undertaker in it. So why in God's name are you comparing 1 superstar in EC matches with another one HIAC matches? Why hasn't anyone thrown in how impressive Khali is in Punjabi Prison matches?

This thread should have compared how impressive they are in HIAC matches from the start. It's Taker's match, his name is forever entwined with the HIAC concept, for two reasons. In '97 he and HBK showed an us entirely new level of brutality in a 30 minute epic. In '98 he and Foley showed us an entirely new level of brutality in 120 seconds, and after a 5 minute interlude, for a further 15 minutes.

IMO, the next few weren't awesome, i for one, wasn't exactly wowed by Lesnar and Taker.

The Bossman's HIAC was pointless, cage meant nothing.

The 6-Way (the only HIAC match you could've actually made a fair comparison with EC matches) was also pointless.

HHH v Foley is memorable more for the fact that it was Foley's original retirement match, and the emotion surrounding it was intense. Great match, but that really amplified it even further beyond great.

I remember nothing about HHH v Jericho except the Pedigree on top of the Cell.

I remember nothing about Nash v HHH except that Foley was the ref.

As i said before, i didn't think Lesnar v Taker was that great. Seemed just like the first match except the Cell was around the ring and Taker wore a cast.

HHH v Batsita bored me to tears, but then so did the WM match.

Orton v Taker seemed like a hardcore match, no need for the Cell.

Unfortunately, after that Cell match, that's how just about all of them went. Instead of using the Cell through 70% of the match, and breaking it, and climbing it, and flying off of it, we now just watched them go under the ring and do that routine.

Who is more impressive out of Taker and HHH. Based on how i feel about HIAC now, and the ones that i can remember well, none of which had HHH in them except the 6-Way, Foley's, and the handicap HIAC, I'd have to go with Taker, and yes i know you think i'm a biased Taker mark who is sick to his stomach of HHH, but I know for a fact that i have enjoyed more Taker HIAC matches than I have HHH HIAC matches.


And to end, it's no surprise that the last two pages of this threaf consist of yet ANOTHER debate as to whether the Undertaker is worth watching or not.

You cannot compare a one on one glorified cage match with a 6 way, elimination, random entry, glorified cage match and that's all i can say. (i'll accept gracefully the infraction i assume i'll receive for this rant)

Seriously!