And none of them had the athletcism, capability or physical resiliency of the Undertaker. As to Vader, Vader is one of those few losses Taker suffered over the course of his career. I'd have been impressed by it if he'd done it on his own without the benefit of outside interference. Agility I'd probably agree with, but not strength. In Kayfabe, the Chokeslam is essentially taking a man by his throat, lifting him off the ground and slamming him to the mat. Never seen Sting do that to anyone, particularly to men billed north of 320 lbs. No one is saying Sting can't go the distance. What so many doubt is Sting's ability to keep the Undertaker down. Taker has simply been in matches against opponents with a much tougher, more brutal offense than Sting has ever mustered in a match. Sting's 3 primary moves are moves Taker has taken via other wrestlers and he's shrugged all of them off. Sure, anything's possible. But likely??? Hell's Gate is a move Sting isn't going to be able to power out of. Doesn't have the leverage or physical strength to do so. Taker has gotten out of the sharpshooter, first one to do so if I'm not mistaken. The SDL/Sharpshooter has proven ineffective against him. As for Hell's Gate, Taker's essentially pulling Sting's throat down across his shin. Sting may have only lost by submission twice, Taker has NEVER lost by submission. Sting is more decorated true. That doesn't automatically mean anything, however. Take Jerry Lawler's son Brian, AKA Grandmaster Sexay, for example. He's won a total of 49 championships in his career, more than Sting and the Undertaker combined. The fact he's won more titles than two of the biggest names in the history of the business doesn't mean I'm going to be including him on that list anytime soon. And, given that, the fact Sting is more decorated doesn't mean he goes over Taker or is better. Taker has had 6 world title reigns and, of all those reigns, only one has come to an end cleanly. The Undertaker is someone that's really beyond titles. He doesn't need them to get over or make his career. Never really has. It's nigh-near impossible for the guy to be beaten cleanly. Barring outside interference, Sting would not win this match. As to a better career and more entertaining, just as easily debatable. I agree that Taker has been placed in some shitty feuds in his time, but he managed to make fans care about every single one of them. Were the Giant Gonzalez, King Kong Bundy, Kama, the Great Khali all horrible opponents? Absolutely. Did fans still tune in and care about seeing Taker take them on? Absolutely. Taker was dealt a shitty hand by creative at times, but he took the sow's ear given to him and turned it into a silk purse almost everytime. Keeping fans interested despite having a crappy opponent is a mark of greatness. As to who had better matches, I'd put Taker's matches with Bret Hart and HBK up against any Sting ever had in his entire career. The only opponent I can think of that gave Sting matches to even remotely compare with those MIGHT be the ones he had with Ric Flair.