Undertaker or Shawn Michaels?

[Heisenberg]

Both men are unquestioned legends of the wrestling business. Both spent about the same time with WWE, so my question to you all is, who had the better career? Obviously, valid arguments could be made for either side . The Streak vs. Mr. WrestleMania series of matches. The first Hell in a Cell match (and still easily the best.) The fact it was the casket match that put HBK on the shelf for over 4 years. Shawn started earlier with the company, but took longer to rise to singles stardom, and the 4 year hiatus, but Taker missed alot of time too, and at unfortunate times, WrestleMania X & 2000 for example, and the monstrosity that was HIAC vs Bossman at XV. I didn't mind Biker Taker too much, but alot of fans didn't like the change. Taker had sort of a resurgence from 06-10 where he had the best matches of his career. Edge, Shawn, Batista feuds. Just saying each has had ups and downs , each is a living legend, and I am just curious as a huge fan of both what everybody thinks as to who would go down as better, at the end of the day....

 

[Heisenberg]

And an interesting side question I just thought of. Let's say it's mid 1997 and they were both free agents. Who would have made the bigger impact if they jumped to WCW at that time?

 

[ilapierre]

No brainier. Taker is a larger than life legend. The greatest character in history. Shawn's a great wrestler but there are lots of great wrestler. There's only one Taker.

 

[relentless1]

Shawn, better matches across the board and he was part of the Kliq and DX, two most influential groups in the history of the business. Taker never really did it for me until he was Big Evil which is ironically the version most dislike.

Both are pushed down our throats by WWE as being the greatest though so the makes me kinda dislike both in comparison to some others TBH

P.S. Shawn would've made a much bigger impact had he jumped in 97 because he would've immediately been involved in some way with the Wolfpac, Taker wouldn't have even been able to use his character if he jumped so its really a no contest; Shawn Michaels showing up on Nitro or Mean Mark lolol

 

[Goldie]

If it was a case of who going to WCW in 1997 the answer is Shawn would have the bigger impact.
Could Mark Calloway be as successful without his Undertaker gimmick?.... the gimmick being owned by WWE of course.
Even if WCW came up with a similar gimmick... Vince would be on them with a lawsuit.

Also when it comes to Taker.... the guy is a WWE legend no arguments there... but over his 20 plus career in the WWE... he has never at any point been the top guy they built the company around, the flagship bearer or face of the company.
ie when Taker debuted... Hogan was the top guy... by 1992 it was Bret, by 1996 Shawn.... then the Attitude era, Austin and Rock stood out by a country mile.
As Taker aged into his 40s.... its been Cena (and to an extent Triple H).
My point being, that Taker was often the #3 or #4 guy on the roster without being the #1 guy. His longevity in the company is the foundation for his legendary status.

 

[Elias Crow]

Geez this is a tough one! Great questions.

At the end of the day I have to go with Shawn. Bottom line you can put him in a match with anyone and it will be great. Doesn't matter if it's Mankind or Kevin Nash or Kurt Angle. He can adapt to whatever style the other wrestler uses and make it some of the most entertaining stuff you'll see. (Reminds me of a quote from Ric Flair about the ladder match with Razor where he says "Shawn went out and had a match with a ladder and there just happened be another guy in the ring." I think that's unfair to Scott Hall, but the point is well taken.)

Taker on the other hand tends to stick more to a particular script. Not that his matches aren't great or entertaining, but there's less spontaneity and diversity.

As for jumping to WCW, I think both would have been misused, but Shawn would probably have been the bigger impact. Taker would have come in with a huge splash and quickly found himself in the middle of the card. Probably eventually putting Goldberg over. Whereas Shawn had a lot more potential feuds that would/could have been great; Bret Hart, Scott Hall, Chris Benoit, DDP, Sting, Ric Flair, Macho Man, etc.

Taker being a big man, would likely have feuded with The Giant, Steve McMichael, Kevin Nash, etc. Which for me are less interesting, but others would probably disagree.

I'm assuming Bischoff would have put both in the nWo, at least eventually. Which interestingly enough I think would have worked a bit better for Taker than Shawn.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Awesome question that can be answered differently depending who you'd ask.

For me, i've got to go with Taker on this one mostly for one reason only, The guy pretty much never left the main event scene since he started in late 1990. He start as a huge surprise at survivor series and then within a year he was feuding with warrior,savage and then Hogan over the WWF championship. Then after the hogan feud, he turn babyface and was again part of some of the main program during that period, he was the main event of the very first monday night raw and pretty much never left WWE for a long period of time.

Meanwhile, Micheals started out as part of the rockers, nobody thought he would become the star he eventually became, took a while before he finally broke out and became the main event star he eventually became and let'S face it, his second run was better then the first one which is why a lot of fans feel he's one of the greatest.

So Taker for me had the better career mostly based on the fact that he's pretty much associated with WWE and has been a main eventer for pretty much is entire run in WWE and while HBK got the most 5 stars match, they were for the most part during his second run of his career.

 

[BeachaMania]

I have to go with HBK here. Love taker to death trust me but like you said I thought his best matches were between 2005ish-2010. Biker taker did nothing for me, idk why just wasn't a fan of the gimmick at all. Shawn Michael's was just consistent through out his entire career once he transitioned into his singles career. Taker will forever be the best 'Big Man' I've ever seen compete, along with 02-03 rookie Brock Lesnar. I just believe match wise Shawn had the overall better career.

Both had memorable matches/feuds with the likes of Kurt Angle, HHH, Stone Cold, and Jericho to name a few. I also think they brought out the best in a few ppl they faced. Taker most def brought out the best in Batista in my opinion. And HBK did the same for Cena. They helped give them much needed credibility.

Sad that we never got to see the likes of hbk and the rock tho

 

[Makaveli31]

If it was a case of who going to WCW in 1997 the answer is Shawn would have the bigger impact.
Could Mark Calloway be as successful without his Undertaker gimmick?.... the gimmick being owned by WWE of course.
Even if WCW came up with a similar gimmick... Vince would be on them with a lawsuit.

I disagree. The same could've been said about Diesel and Razor Ramon but Scott Hall and Kevin Nash owned the gimmicks in terms of mannerisms, attitude, the way they cut promos, the way they worked in the ring. They WERE Razor and Diesel and the same can be said about Mark Callaway and the Undertaker. Vince might own the copyright but Mark Callaway IS the Undertaker It didn't matter what they called him in WCW.

And an interesting side question I just thought of. Let's say it's mid 1997 and they were both free agents. Who would have made the bigger impact if they jumped to WCW at that time?

In terms of impact it's clearly the Undertake. A top heavyweight will always have a bigger impact than a top cruiser or light heavy. It's just a fact and in 1997 'Taker was the absolute top of the food chain. He would've came in as a stand alone. Meaning no affiliation with anyone. Shawn would've made an impact as well but he would've most likely been paired immediately with Hall and Nash and they were already cemented as the lead dogs. Shawn would've been third in that pecking order.

I can't really say who had the better career as I stopped watching in around 2000 but there is no doubt Shawn was the more controversial of the two and because of that I would say he had the memorable career. Going from "Boy Toy" to white meat babyface World Champion, trend setter with DX, then a career revival as Born Again Christian. Hs career arc is amazing.

 

[John1122]

They are two different types of wrestlers. While Shawn Michaels was a showstopper, the best wrestler of his generation, the Undertaker's attributes lay in his character work and his character was what made him the phenomenon he is today. As an in-ring performer, Shawn Michaels was a better wrestler. But as a character, Undertaker has an edge over Michaels.

 

[Rulk25]

First off Shawn makes the bigger impact especially for what it means DOES not happen....With no HBK there is no DX and that was along with Austin and Rock one of the biggest things to fight the NWO although NWO would have imploded as Hogan and him would clash

 

[Spencesc11]

It's clearly one of those questions without a wrong answer. Both guys are more than capable of being the face of a company. If it were me I would go Taker based on his locker room presence as the main reason. I think if he would've jumped ship back in the day he could've kept the WCW guys under control better. And if you didn't carry him over as "The Undertaker" you could've turned him into a new evil creation like the "The Reaper" .

 

[John1122]

Undertaker.

 

[Goldie]

I disagree. The same could've been said about Diesel and Razor Ramon but Scott Hall and Kevin Nash owned the gimmicks in terms of mannerisms, attitude, the way they cut promos, the way they worked in the ring. They WERE Razor and Diesel and the same can be said about Mark Callaway and the Undertaker. Vince might own the copyright but Mark Callaway IS the Undertaker It didn't matter what they called him in WCW.
.

This is precisely my point though, when Scott Hall joined WCW he obviously couldn't use the Razor Ramone gimmick.... he used his real name.... however it didn't stop Vince launching a lawsuit against WCW for using traits of his character.... Hall still had his minor traits like his tooth picks, and put on Razor accent.
Whilst myself included, didn't think that Scott Hall in WCW was directly ripping off Razor Ramone.... it didn't stop Vince filing a lawsuit.

As Scott Hall himself said at the lawsuit court, he was Scott Hall accused of impersonating, Razor Ramone... but Razor Ramone was in fact impersonating Al Pacinos 'Scarface' Tony Montanna character.

You can bet if Mark Calloway came to WCW with even a small resemblence to a creepy character... Vince would be onto them with an Undertaker rip off lawsuit

 

[Makaveli31]

This is precisely my point though, when Scott Hall joined WCW he obviously couldn't use the Razor Ramone gimmick.... he used his real name.... however it didn't stop Vince launching a lawsuit against WCW for using traits of his character.... Hall still had his minor traits like his tooth picks, and put on Razor accent.
Whilst myself included, didn't think that Scott Hall in WCW was directly ripping off Razor Ramone.... it didn't stop Vince filing a lawsuit.

It wasn't a copyright infringement lawsuit. Vince's argument in the lawsuit was that Hall and Nash were giving the impression they were working for the WWF when they "invaded" WCW. That was the reason why Eric Bischoff had to ask them point blank on live TV if they were working for the WWF which they both stated they were not. The "tooth pick" actually started with the Diamond Studd gimmick in WCW as did alot of what would become "Razor Ramon" traits. The only thing Vince owned was the name "Razor Ramon" same as the "Undertaker".

But my larger point is he would've been just as successful no matter what he was called (unless Bischoff went totally off the deep end with a stupid name) because he all know who Mark Callaway was and is. He could come down in just a black leather trench coat no top hat no organ music and he would have just as big an impact because of he is and what he represented at the time.

 

[scorpiondeathdrop]

Undertaker.

 

[Rossinater]

At first I instantly thought The Undertaker. After more thought, I decided Shawn Michaels. First I look at Wrestlemania; The Undertaker has an unbelievable legacy in the streak but, Shawn Michaels is known as Mr. Wrestlemania because he stole the show in every single one. Undertaker has had a longer, more dominant career but, Shawn was involved in the most entertaining times of the business with DX. Shawn always had the hot angle, always out performed his peers and is responsible for the careers of so many to come.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

And an interesting side question I just thought of. Let's say it's mid 1997 and they were both free agents. Who would have made the bigger impact if they jumped to WCW at that time?

Okay as a teenage fan at the time, I would say Shawn Michaels would have made a bigger impact if he went to WCW in 1997. He would have been able to be called Shawn Michaels so he would have had his brand to carry over. And if he joined the NWO he would have pulled huge audiences. Undertaker would not have been called Undertaker as it was Vince McMahons character creation. Plus it took til late 97 for Undertaker to start to be a better wrestler; he was revitalised by his feuds with Mankind, Bret Hart and HBK. Undertakers performances before mid to late 1996 were awful (mostly due to his opponents and limitations with his character).

Undertaker is the bigger global legend; but HBK was the best in ring performer of all time (narrowing Bret Hart and Kurt Angle out due to the length of time that HBKs career spanned in the WWE). I accept HBK as the best wrestler ever for a career point of view but i'd rather watch Bret Harts best matches than HBKs.