WCW Houston, Round 1, Match 1: #2 The Undertaker vs. #63 The Great Khali

[Shocky]

The following match takes place in the WCW Region under WCW Rules, from houston, TX. The ring entrance and ring are equal height.

#2. The Undertaker

vs.

#63. The Great Khali

​

 

[Slyfox696]

If I'm not mistaken, Khali has already defeated The Undertaker in a classic 1-on-1 setting, and beat him convincingly. I don't see why this time would be any different.

I go with The Great Khali.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

If I recall, The Undertaker has never beaten The Great Khali. Khali has dominated the Undertaker on more than one occasion. Because of that, I have no choice but to vote for Khali.

 

[Uncle Sam]

The Undertaker has beaten The Great Khali, I believe. However, I'm unsure if he's done it in your traditional one-on-one singles match, which this match is. I know the Great Khali has beaten The Undertaker in a singles match - with relative ease, I might add.

The Undertaker takes an early shower. Does he shower? He's supposed be dead. He probably needs one.

 

[Tastycles]

The Undertaker may not have beaten Khali 1 on 1, but he tore him apart on Smackdown about 10 months ago. Khali may have beaten The Undertaker when they initially fought, but he certainly wasn't booked as strongly as the Undertaker has been in the past.

Khali at the peak of his powers beat the Undertaker, but the Undertaker at the peak of his powers beat Hulk Hogan for the world title. I just can't see how The Undertaker at his peak would lose to Khali.

To nullify an anticipated argument, I'd like to point out that The Undertaker did beat big people without the Devil's Gate or whatever it is called, like King Kong Bundy at Wrestlemania.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

1. Undertaker defeated Khali in a Last Man Standing Match on the Smackdown prior to Summerslam. The Last Man Standing loss by Khali was his first in WWE. This evened their series at 1-1.

2. Undertaker and Khali were supposed to face each other in the Punjabi Prison Match at the Great American Bash, but due to health issues, Big Show took Khali's place and jobbed to Undertaker.

It's dismissive to say that Khali was 1-0 against Undertaker and thus should win here, because a) he's not 1-0 against Undertaker, and b) the feud ended because of Khali's health and the decision to push Taker as WHC and send Khali to ECW.

That being said, I have not yet decided which way I am going here. It's as even as any of the first round matches thus far. But I am thinking I have to give it to the Undertaker on longevity and versatility.

 

[klunderbunker]

Taker with ease here. No one says he has to win by pinfall here, which is what Taker would do. See, there are other versions of Taker rather than the Deadman. Biker Taker for example would be smart enough to lure Khali outside, bust him up a bit in the aisle and slide back inside the ring to get the win. Khali is big and strong but he's stupid and slow. Taker is big, strong, smart and not as slow. Based on his brains mixing with his physical abilities, Taker wins here.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The Undertaker is my all-time favorite wrestler and I hope he goes far but I have to pick The Great Khali. If you consider Taker's prime to be 2004-present then he loses to Khali because Khali decimated the Undertaker at Judgment Day 2006. It's true that Undertaker has beaten Khali but that was a Last Man Standing match. I'm not dismissing that totally but I look back to Judgment Day and saw what happened.

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

I don't understand why people don't consider the last man standing match win as impressive. Taker beat Khali so badly he could not get up at a10 count. Taker was down for 3 seconds, with a 400 pounder on him. Not to mention, remember after Vicki banned Hell's Gate, and Taker slapped it on Khali as a show of defiance, Khali tapped like a baby after like 2 seconds. Taker easily.

 

[The Todd]

Yes Khali did beat Taker, and convincingly so, but I would argue since then Khali has got worse, whilst Taker has improved and, most importantly, has Devil's Gate now. Khali has tapped to this at No Way Out 2008 inside the Elimination Chamber and I do believe he did on an episode of SD when Vickie ordered him to "take the belt" off Taker. SO if you have the Khali of then against the Taker of now, I will vote Taker. He showed in the LMS match he can chokeslam Khali after taking a beating, thus knocking him off his feet, then he locks in Hells/Devil's Gate or whatever it is called. It won't be an easy match though and Khali could easily get the win if Taker fails to hit the chokeslam before Khali hits his.

 

[SavageTaker]

I think that the undertaker takes the win here.Like someone else said he has already beaten big people and he didnt have some of the moves he has now.So seeing that they are 1-1.i think the undertaker will take the win here because he will do whatever it takes and he has new moves that he didnt use on khali i think.So taker takes the win here.

 

[Lee]

For keeping it kayfabe some arguments on why I should pick the Undertaker are really weak. I for one shall be picking the Great Khali here, the picture above paints a thousand words.

 

[Tastycles]

If that picture is relevant, why isn't this one? It is The Undertaker doing a move on Khali until he passes out. If that isn't a way to win in kayfabe, then I don't know what is.

 

[Slyfox696]

If that picture is relevant, why isn't this one? It is The Undertaker doing a move on Khali until he passes out. If that isn't a way to win in kayfabe, then I don't know what is.

If I'm not mistaken, that picture was taken from a match where it was No Holds Barred. The match Khali won was a classic one-on-one matchup...like the one in this tournament is.

I believe that's the difference.

 

[Big Sexy]

Although Taker lost their first meeting and he was dominated for most of the match, he did have control of Khali near the end until interference from Davari helped Khali win. Not only that but when Taker first came into the WWE he was more dominate then Khali has ever been. After only one year in the WWE he beat Hulk Hogan to win the WWE title, and this is when Hogan was "The Man." The only other guy that really beat him was Ultimate Warrior during that time period. Not to mention Taker would have Paul Bearer in his corner and anytime Khali chopped him down, Taker would sit right back up.

 

[Tastycles]

You are mistaken, but it didn't happen in a proper match, I was illustrating that The Undertaker had gotten the better of Khali.

I really don't feel strongly enough about this match up to argue about it, but I think it comes down to this: Khali beat him once, when Khali was at the peak of his kayfabe ability in the first match of a feud and people seem to think that that victory is transferrable everywhere. If you think that at no point in his career could the Undertaker overcome Khali, then by all means vote for him, but I really think that the dominant early 90s Undertaker would beat him.

 

[2012isbs]

I seem to remember a submission match before the devil's gate was used where Taker had Khali tap to a frickin Triangle Choke. a triangle choke my money's on taker. And plus as already mentioned taker in his prime was a monster he beat Hulk Hogan for God's sake Kahli beat oh yeah that Ultimate warrior poser. So Taker has my vote

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

This was a one on one singles match. No gimmicks, just like this one. Khali literally dominated The Undertaker. Taker was able to win when weapons and such were involved, but in a singles match he was tossed around the ring as though he were some no-name jobber. Khali should move on.

 

[DC24]

I'm going with the Undertaker; besides the first time Khali beat him; Taker has really manhandled him to be honest. It doesn't matter what type of match it is a win is win period. Takers made him tap out, busted him up to where he couldn't respond to a 10 count so is there really a question who should move on.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

DC24, that was one of the most ignorant statements made in this tournament. "It doesn't matter what type of match it is"... Are you kidding? A hardcore matches is completely different from a singles. Kurt Angle would dominate in singles matches, but someone like Raven could pose a serious threat under hardcore rules. Match type matters more than anything! I'm going to pick Andre the Giant over Jeff Hardy in a singles match, but you'd be crazy to pick Andre in a Ladder Match. Khali dominated Taker in the singles match they wrestled. It's that simple. Vote Khali.

 

[Gelgarin]

I certainly wasn't paying attention to this feud, but as I remember it, the match in which Khali "dominated" Taker, Undertaker was actually in control up until the point at which there was outside interference from Daivari.

President dictates that was don't factor interference into there matches, so I'm voting Taker.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

This is one of the only Prime vs. Prime matches to have actually happened so far. There's no other way you can vote for this match. Undertaker was squashed, literally. There's no other way around it. Even on another day you'd expect that Taker might get a little more offence, but he'd still lose.

Anybody who produces any pictures of Undertaker beating Khali, they've missed the point.

 

[Tastycles]

This is one of the only Prime vs. Prime matches to have actually happened so far.

In what sense was it prime vs. prime? Khali was in his prime, but the Undertaker certainly wasn't. His most recent feud was against career midcarder Mark Henry and he hadn't held a world title for 4 years. He may have been having the best matches of his career, but he wasn't having the best kayfabe period in his career.

For that, you can either look to early 2008, where he was dominantin the elimination chamber, against Edge, made light work of Batista, and then destroyed someone in the middle of the ring because Hawkins or Ryder stole his title. I believe the person he destroyed was Th Great Khali, beating him so badly he was out for a month.

Alternatively you could look at the early 90s were he remained unpinned despite feuding with the Ultimate Warrior, and even managed to beat Hulk Hogan. Over the next couple of years, he pretty much beat every big player in the company. Beating Hulk Hogan and pretty much all of La Familia is a bigger acheivement than beating Mark Henry, so I'd argue his prime came in either of these times and not 2006.

There's no other way you can vote for this match. Undertaker was squashed, literally. There's no other way around it. Even on another day you'd expect that Taker might get a little more offence, but he'd still lose.

He did get in quite a lot of offence in that match, and while Khali did beat him
up early on, he was certainly in the driving seat when Daivari interfered. I'm aware that The Undertaker only beat Khali in a gimmick matches, but the way in which he dispatched him in the Elimination chamber, and on Smackdown in their aborted match would suggest that when he was in his prime, taker would beat him.

Anybody who produces any pictures of Undertaker beating Khali, they've missed the point.

Wrestling is littered with instances of people dominating somebody who should be better than them. In The Undertaker you have somebody who has at times in his career been literally unbeatable. Khali, on the other hand, was unbeaten for all of about a month of active competition. He then returned, lost to the Undertaker, albeit in a gimmick match, and then went on to feud with Tommy Dreamer in ECW.

Khali beat the Undertaker once, when the Undertaker was far from the strongest he had ever been. Im'm sceptical that some people have even seen the match in question, yourself excluded, and are basing their opinion on this entirely based upon a photograph, which is why I posted the one of 'Taker making Khali pass out. To be honest, it was a weak argument, but I think a picture of Khali standing over The Undertaker taken out of context is an equally poor argument.

The Undertaker of 2006 may have lost to Khali, but the Undertaker of 1991 wouldn't have beaten him, which is why I'm voting for The Undertaker.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

In what sense was it prime vs. prime? Khali was in his prime, but the Undertaker certainly wasn't.

You don't think the Undertaker of 2006 would be the Undertaker of 1990? He's everything that one was, but stronger and faster.

His most recent feud was against career midcarder Mark Henry and he hadn't held a world title for 4 years. He may have been having the best matches of his career, but he wasn't having the best kayfabe period in his career.

Right. But guess what? The Undertaker of 2006 is exactly the same as the Undertaker of 2007 & 2008. The same man who won the WHC on two consecutive WrestleManias.

For that, you can either look to early 2008, where he was dominantin the elimination chamber, against Edge, made light work of Batista, and then destroyed someone in the middle of the ring because Hawkins or Ryder stole his title. I believe the person he destroyed was Th Great Khali, beating him so badly he was out for a month.

Nobody is saying Undertaker wouldn't beat that Khali. The broken down shell of a man. But they are saying that the Khali who made his debut two years earlier would and did squash the Undertaker.

Alternatively you could look at the early 90s were he remained unpinned despite feuding with the Ultimate Warrior, and even managed to beat Hulk Hogan.

Will that be the Undertaker who didn't have a blow off match with The Ultimate Warrior and who won the title with the help of Ric Flair then lost it a week later?

Over the next couple of years, he pretty much beat every big player in the company. Beating Hulk Hogan and pretty much all of La Familia is a bigger acheivement than beating Mark Henry, so I'd argue his prime came in either of these times and not 2006.

The Undertaker that hovered around the mid card over The Undertaker that was headlining shows in 2008?

Like I said. The Undertaker of 2008 is the same one of 2006. The Undertaker of 1990 is the same one from 1995.

He did get in quite a lot of offence in that match, and while Khali did beat him
up early on, he was certainly in the driving seat when Daivari interfered. I'm aware that The Undertaker only beat Khali in a gimmick matches, but the way in which he dispatched him in the Elimination chamber, and on Smackdown in their aborted match would suggest that when he was in his prime, taker would beat him.

But Undertaker didn't beat Prime Khali™ . He lost, emphatically.

You can say the the Khali from this time, or the Khali from then. But that's not when he was at his best.

Wrestling is littered with instances of people dominating somebody who should be better than them. In The Undertaker you have somebody who has at times in his career been literally unbeatable.

Unbeatable? Nope. Almost every big man and big star has beaten the Undertaker.

Khali, on the other hand, was unbeaten for all of about a month of active competition. He then returned, lost to the Undertaker, albeit in a gimmick match, and then went on to feud with Tommy Dreamer in ECW.

Exactly. The Undertaker could only beat him in a gimmick match. It doesn't matter where his career went after. By that point his knees were shot and he was on a downwards slope.

Khali beat the Undertaker once, when the Undertaker was far from the strongest he had ever been.

Why, what was the matter with The Undertaker? Did he have an injury in 2006?

Im'm sceptical that some people have even seen the match in question, yourself excluded, and are basing their opinion on this entirely based upon a photograph, which is why I posted the one of 'Taker making Khali pass out.

I was the first to make the point and I didn't post a photograph. No need. If you've seen the match you're aware of what a total squash it is.

To be honest, it was a weak argument, but I think a picture of Khali standing over The Undertaker taken out of context is an equally poor argument.

Not really. If you ignore the Undertaker prime for a second, you've still got a picture of Khali in his prime standing over The Undertaker.

The Undertaker of 2006 may have lost to Khali, but the Undertaker of 1991 wouldn't have beaten him, which is why I'm voting for The Undertaker.

Agreed. The Undertaker of 1991 wouldn't have beat him either.

VOTE KHALI.

 

[Tastycles]

You don't think the Undertaker of 2006 would be the Undertaker of 1990? He's everything that one was, but stronger and faster.

Stronger and faster and seemingly superhuman. Remember when he got twatted with the urn and then got up immediately?

Right. But guess what? The Undertaker of 2006 is exactly the same as the Undertaker of 2007 & 2008. The same man who won the WHC on two consecutive WrestleManias.

It's the same man, yes, but he wasn't being booked the same way. He may have been as good or better in 2006 in actuality, but in kayfabe he was certainly better in 2008.

Nobody is saying Undertaker wouldn't beat that Khali. The broken down shell of a man. But they are saying that the Khali who made his debut two years earlier would and did squash the Undertaker.

So Khali is allowed to change in two years, but the Undertaker isn't?

Will that be the Undertaker who didn't have a blow off match with The Ultimate Warrior and who won the title with the help of Ric Flair then lost it a week later?

Yes, that's the one, the one that lost the title when Hogan blinded him with ash. He's fighting the Khali that beat the Undertaker with the help of Daivari, then lost next time they fought.

The Undertaker that hovered around the mid card over The Undertaker that was headlining shows in 2008?

Like I said. The Undertaker of 2008 is the same one of 2006. The Undertaker of 1990 is the same one from 1995.

No he isn't, people's position in kayfabe changes. The HHH of 2000 is the same guy as the Hunter Hearst Helmsley of 1996, but while one was losing in less than two minutes at WrestleMania, the other was winning titles. The Khali of 2006 beat the Undertaker, but in 2008 lost to lots of people, and can't even fight anymore. Even if you don't look at gimmick change, or injury, people slide up and down the roster. Chavo Guerrero started 2008 as ECW Champion, and beat people clean while he was holding it, now he can't buy a win against anybody.

The Undertaker of 1990/1 beat everybody that crossed his path, The Undertaker of 2008 didnt lose to hardly anybody, the Undertaker of 1995 and 2006 did lose. He wasn't as weak in 2006 as he was in 1995, but the effects are similar. He is someone that has peaks and troughs in his kayfabe strength, when he fought Khali that was a trough.

But Undertaker didn't beat Prime Khali™ . He lost, emphatically.

Khali didn't beat Prime Undertaker. The only time he came close was when the Undertaker made him pass out.

You can say the the Khali from this time, or the Khali from then. But that's not when he was at his best.

The Undertaker from 2006 wasn't his best either.

Unbeatable? Nope. Almost every big man and big star has beaten the Undertaker.

I said "at times". Who beat him in the year he debuted in? Who beat him in anything approaching a fair one on one contest last year?

Exactly. The Undertaker could only beat him in a gimmick match. It doesn't matter where his career went after. By that point his knees were shot and he was on a downwards slope.

His knees weren't shot then. After he went to ECW he went to Raw and was still fairly dominant. After the Undertaker won their feud, he moved down the card to ECW.

Why, what was the matter with The Undertaker? Did he have an injury in 2006?

There was nothing literally the matter with him, but he wasn't booked as strongly as he was at other times.

I was the first to make the point and I didn't post a photograph. No need. If you've seen the match you're aware of what a total squash it is.

Maybe, but someone has made the point and people have jumped on the bandwagon. Was Khali better than The Undertaker in 2006? Yes he was. Was Khali better than the Undertaker in 2008? No he wasn't. The Khali of 2006 is comparable to the Undertaker of 1990/1, two big guys pushed when they first arrived. The difference is, is that The Undertaker dominated a few people that mattered, like Hogan and Jake Roberts shortly afterwards, while Khali beat The Undertaker, lost decisively in their gimmicked rematch and then proceeded to feud with nobodies on ECW.

I'm not denying that The Undertaker was beaten by Khali, I'm not even denying that Khali dominated the match, but what I am saying is that it was shown that it wasn't a clean win, dominance or not, by the presence of Daivari. The Undertaker when he first arrived was supposed to be immortal. He simply would not lose this match. Human dominance against supernatural dominance loses in kayfabe.

Not really. If you ignore the Undertaker prime for a second, you've still got a picture of Khali in his prime standing over The Undertaker.

And if you ignore the fact that Khali is a shell of his early dominant self, you still have a photo of Undertaker making Khali pass out. It's the same argument for each photo.

Agreed. The Undertaker of 1991 wouldn't have beat him either.

Yes yes, typos. I actually changed that to what it said, thinking it looked wrong. Must be my subconscience telling me something.

VOTE KHALI.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If people read this argument think that The Undertaker was as strong as he had ever been when Khali beat him, then the logical thing is to vote Khali. If you think that it wasn't the Undertaker's prime, then don't.

I'm not bothered if Taker goes out first round, as I feel it will open up the tournament, but if people are going to vote Khali, please only do it because you've thought it through and not because the best posters on the forum think it. They're not always right, you know.