Who's better #1: The Undertaker or Shawn Michaels?

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker are two of the greatest WWE superstars of all time.

They both had a very long and succesful career that lasted over 2 decades.

They are both the two greatest performers in WrestleMania history.


Who do you think is better?

The Phenom, The Deadman, The Undertaker or The Showstopper, The Heart Break Kid, The Icon, The Main Event Shawn Michaels?

 

[NaptownMVP]

Shawn Michaels did it on every level and won every title available. No matter where he was on the card, he always put on a hell of a show. He earned the respect of the bigger guys and really showed what a smaller guy can do. He (and a few others) changed the way guys his size were viewed in the main event scene, changing pro wrestling entirely, and paving the way for the small main eventers we have now.

I don't know how anyone can vote for Undertaker.

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

Shawn Michaels did it on every level and won every title available. No matter where he was on the card, he always put on a hell of a show. He earned the respect of the bigger guys and really showed what a smaller guy can do. He (and a few others) changed the way guys his size were viewed in the main event scene, changing pro wrestling entirely, and paving the way for the small main eventers we have now.

I don't know how anyone can vote for Undertaker.

That's blasphemy.

Undertaker and Michaels are very close, they're on the exact same level.

The Undertaker has the greatest gimmick ever, because of him many special matches were introduced: casket match, buried alive match...

The Undertaker has faced the best of the best

Taker was better on the mic than Michaels as well.


You said Shawn paved the way for small guys. I wouldn't exactly say Michaels was small, he was 6'1-6'2. Sure at his time he was small but he was the same size as Bret hart who got a huge push before Michaels.

Also, Michaels got pushed because he was Vince's boy toy. Many former wrestlers said that Shawn had sex with Vince.

Taker was also great equally as a face and as a heel unlike Michaels who sucked as a face.

The boyhood dream storyline was extremely pathetic and was such a flop.

It cost wwf big ratings.

While princess Shawn was enjoying finally winning the title and becoming the queen., real men were tuning in to nitro to see a REAL SUPERSTAR in hulk Hogan.

 

[NaptownMVP]

But Undertaker never changed wrestling. He introduced some stuff that went along with his character (buried alive, casket, etc), but these things were never used outside of him (and maybe Kane/Mankind). HBK (and others, like I said) changed the way an entire set of guys were looked at. He showed that you didn't have to be in the main event to be the best match of the night. He was changing the game when he was in The Rockers, and never stopped. And to come back and have the ending to his career after being gone 4 years and told he'd never wrestle again is amazing.

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

But Undertaker never changed wrestling. He introduced some stuff that went along with his character (buried alive, casket, etc).

There was a casket match in TNA last week.

He showed that you didn't have to be in the main event to be the best match of the night.

Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat, Jimmy Snuka, etc. were all doing it before HBK.

And to come back and have the ending to his career after being gone 4 years and told he'd never wrestle again is amazing.

Shawn Michaels was still under contract when he was injured and on TV. He was getting paid more than most wrestlers.

And that "career ending" injury is exaggerated. A lot of rumours said that hbk was cleared to wrestle a year after his injury.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Undertaker. Michaels is the single most overrated professional wrestler in history.

 

[TheVolFan52]

HBK is the greatest of all time and there's only two guys who come close to touching him and it's Taker and Flair. Michaels is the best in ring performer, great look, great character, great on mic, great at everything. Taker is the best character in wrestling history and is amazing in the ring considering his size and he is defiantly number two but Michaels is in a class of his own.

 

[SSJPhenom]

When you're talking about these two, it really comes down to what flavor of kool aid you like best. Do you like Shawn Michaels who is known as one of, if not the, greatest in ring performer of all the times? Do you like 'Taker, who revolutionized what it meant to be a big man in the business of professional wrestling?

HBK, as someone has already said, did it on every level. He won every single title that the WWF/E had to offer at the time and whether he was in the first match, in the mid card, or in the main event he put on shows that most of his peers could only dream about. Michaels has 11 MOTY Awards which is more than anyone else in the history of Professional Wrestling. To call this man an icon is an understatement.

Then there's 'Taker, who has been a main event level performer since his debut. 1 short year after his debut, he defeated Hulk Hogan to win his very first WWF Championship. Unfortunately for 'Taker, however, he would spend several of the next few years locked in battles with men that were awful performers. People like Giant Gonzalez, Kamala, King Kong Bundy, and others come to mind. Even then, though, people were starting to recognize that 'Taker had more to offer then your prototypical big man in wrestling. He was coming off the top rope, doing flying clotheslines, and other athletic things that the fans had never seen a man of his size do. Not only was 'Taker innovative in the ring, but he showed a respect and determination for the business that had never been seen before. You hear stories of 'Taker wrestling with broken ankles, broken ribs, a crushed eye socket, and other injuries. He became the most respected and admired wrestler to both the fans and his peers. Then there's the Streak, which is unparalleled by anything HBK accomplished.

If I had to pick one, I'd pick 'Taker. He slightly edges out Shawn Michaels IMO.

 

[dman1373]

Shawn has had better matches, has cut better promos, has been in better storylines, and never had limp bizkit do his entrance song. Its clear cut to me.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

In terms of match quality, mic skills, storytelling, Shawn Michaels by far.

Michaels was wrestling classic matches and keeping the WWF afloat when WCW was kicking their ass in the ratings. Michaels along with DX were very influential in the success of the Attitude era.

Michaels never needed any gimmick matches or a "streak" to prove everybody how great he was. Michaels made everyone look better than they are and that includes Undertaker.

 

[The_Don]

I'd have to say Undertaker. He's the best big man I've ever seen. He's the best gimmick I've ever seen. His in ring performance reacts like the gimmick is supposed to. He has changed attire and looks throughout the years. He has a longer longevity than HBK (HBK was injured in '98, came back in '02). Taker switched gimmick in 2000 with the American Bad Ass and then the Big Evil. Whenever he used to do the diving press outside the ring, I couldn't believe a guy his height and weight could do it.

That's why I give Taker the slight edge over HBK.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Undertaker, Undertaker, Undertaker! Period. Yes, he was involved in some "horrendous" feuds, but so f'n be it. If I was a performer I'd gladly take a feud with Giant Gonzales over some of the asinine nonsense Shawn Michaels was involved in...like that feud with the McMahon family with "God" as his tag team partner.

Here's the thing that separates Undertaker from all the rest. This includes Hogan, Austin, Cena, Hart, Flair...the guy is the most operatic character of them all. Had any other performer been handed the Undertaker persona i.e. Dan Spivey, Sid, even Scott Hall (not that I'm insinuating that they were ever considered), I seriously doubt the character would be around to this day.

With a character like The Undertaker, something special happened. An evolution, and not to say that Shawn Michaels hasn't had that, but The Undertaker exemplifies that more. Sure some stupid and silly stuff has happened along the way, like his feud with Kane got monotonous and it kept changing in plot (i.e. the way Kane was burned and what not). But The Undertaker managed at least for me to make his feuds engaging no matter who he was up against.

Hell, I put on SmackDown to watch him face Vladimir Kozlov and I enjoyed the match just because it was Kozlov, there's only one or two other stars these days that would motivate me just to put the TV on for them, and Undertaker is on that short list.

To me, Shawn Michaels had heart and soul in that ring, I can't take that away and I loved him to death during his young, brash heel days. But Taker > HBK, to those that are longtime WWE-fans The Taker is truly the conscience of WWE, no ifs, ands or buts.

It's going to be a difficult day to absorb it all when you no longer hear that fear of god sounding gong emanate through the arena for WrestleMania season.

 

[NtwrestlingMaster]

I personally have to go with the Undertaker on this one. He is one of the best gimmicks in the history of the WWE, and goes to great lengths to protect his gimmick. Even though Taker was in some lousy feuds at times, at least we had him, while HBK was gone and injured. Another reason Taker is better, is he is more willing to put people over. He put over Brock Lesnar, Jeff Hardy, Maven, and many others, while it is tough to think of many people HBK has put over. Yes, Taker is leaving, and returning every Mania, but he can still put on a show every April, while HBK is sitting at home, on his couch watching it on TV. Both were great wrestlers, and are some of my all time favorites, but I believe Taker is the best.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Michaels was involved in :

1) First ever WWE Ladder match
2) First ever Hell in a Cell match
3) Most infamous moment in wrestling history (Montreal Screwjob)
4) DX (Without Montreal Screwjob and DX, there would be no Attitude era)
5) Involved in the first ever Elimination Chamber
6) Retired Ric Flair
7) Undertaker's streak became relevant after wrestling Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 25.

Michaels accomplished way more than Undertaker who is only relevant because of a predetermined overhyped streak. Undertaker is very overrated. Without the streak, his career is not that memorable.

HBK > Taker.

 

[dxparza]

Gotta pick the Heart break kid on this one.. He's The greatest in ring performer, if not than he's 1-a.. Basically its a great gimmick with a good performer vs the best in ring performer ever with a good gimmick non gimmick.. Even after a 4 and a half year absence HBK came back and looked to not have missed a beat in the ring.. Sure the streak is a cool thing and has become its own attraction at wrestlemania, but i'll take any HBK match over the streak.. We were all treated to the best of both worlds At WM 25&26.. HBK edges out undertaker in this poll, but its a close one..

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Didn't Dagger already send one of these to the Trash because WZ already does this exact same thread every year? Why are you still doing these?

And only one of those two has managed to hold onto a ridiculous gimmick and make it withstand the test of time.

 

[L@RISANO]

Michaels was involved in :

1) First ever WWE Ladder match
2) First ever Hell in a Cell match
3) Most infamous moment in wrestling history (Montreal Screwjob)
4) DX (Without Montreal Screwjob and DX, there would be no Attitude era)
5) Involved in the first ever Elimination Chamber
6) Retired Ric Flair
7) Undertaker's streak became relevant after wrestling Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 25.

Michaels accomplished way more than Undertaker who is only relevant because of a predetermined overhyped streak. Undertaker is very overrated. Without the streak, his career is not that memorable.

HBK > Taker.

This is one of those debates that will stand the test of time,lMO.
Because of the type of performer HBK was, he connected with a bigger demographic of the WWE fans and is generally favoured more in any debate with Taker. Actually, there was a list by the WWE naming the Greatest Superstars in the WWE ever, and HBK was #1, whilst Taker was #2.

That being said, I'll reply to your reasons for HBK being better, by saying why Taker is better.

1) The Undertaker character basically created the Hell in a Cell,Casket and Buried Alive matches amongst others.

2) See Number 1. Undertaker was the other half alongwith Shawn Michaels.

3) the Undertaker reportedly made Vince Mcmahon apologise to Bret Hart for said incident. Was a major galvanising effect in the locker room after that incident occured. Shawn Michaels wasn't the hero in it either, don't see why it should be boasted about,tbh.

4) Another report stated that Undertaker threatened Shawn Michaels to do the job for Austin at WM14 due to HBK apparently not wanting to. Him not jobbing at the time, would have hurt the WWE's plans at that point as Austin was incredibly over at the time and HBK was injured.

5) See number 1.

6) Retired Shawn Michaels.

7) Actually, Randy Orton made the WM Streak known to the WWE audience, and from then it became a staple attraction on the WM card yearly.

Cheers.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In the grand scheme of things, I'd say they're probably on a roughly similar level. Both are multiple time World Champions, both are two of the biggest names in the history of the business, both have had very memorable feuds & matches, both have taken on & beaten a who's who of the business over the past 25 years or so.

Who is considered to be better inside the ring, I'd say most people would probably go with HBK. He was smaller and, therefore, had a more athletic style, was the stronger mat technician all in all and could pull solid matches out of nearly anybody. That's not to say that Taker was weak, as he wasn't, but he was more of a brawler & power based guy. It suited him when you consider his size and his character, but it could make for some lousy matches if he was up against other big guys who just didn't have the kinda stuff that Taker did.

As far as who's more respected, Taker gets that one hands down due to all the various shenanigans HBK pulled backstage, along with other members of the Kliq, during the 90s. Michaels himself has all but come right out and said that he was an asshole back in the day and there's no shortage of people that'd disagree with him. Taker's always been known as a stand up guy, someone that was always more about the business than his own ego and someone who didn't play backstage politics.

When it comes to personality, HBK seems like the obvious winner but I'd put them fairly even here. HBK was much more vocal on the mic, as befitting his character, while Taker's more minimalist approach has worked out extremely well for him. Michaels is the more dynamic while Taker has the stronger presence. They're both pretty opposite with HBK being more flamboyant and, at times, juvenile while Taker was always more somber & darker, but I always thought they made it work.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I'm not going to lie, I was very shocked to see that Shawn Michaels was losing the poll when I voted. The vote is currently 11-9 in favor of the Undertaker.

The "Who's better #1" leads me to believe this is the first of many threads in which we will compare the legacies of different WWE legends. Let me tell you, OP, there won't be a closer comparison to make than this one between these two first-ballot Hall of Famers. They are both iconic staples of the company who are actually the only ones who are able to boast about being on top of the WWE for two consecutive decades. They both have made a special home at WrestleMania and when put together, they created the greatest match in the history of the event. These guys are legends but I will have to say Shawn Michaels is better than The Undertaker.

HBK is in everyone's top 3 for greatest in-ring performers of all-time, and is many people's number 1. For me, he is second to Bret Hart but there is no denying that he showed an unparalleled skill level in the ring in the 21st century despite the crippling back surgery. Although Undertaker is definitely top 10 in every category, I really wouldn't put him in the top 3 of any. Michaels also has more classic matches, there's actually not a single wrestler in WWE history who has had more memorable matches in the company than Shawn Michaels. While he may have never had the dominant face run that Hogan, Bret, or Austin had, he left an almost-equally lasting impression in wrestling fans through his memorable matches that occurred multiple times every year.

Another big thing is that Shawn Michaels spent a large time being billed as the Icon, the Main Event. Undertaker seemed to have a stigma of playing second-fiddle to the main event. Look a lot of the biggest cards or his biggest moments, he usually was entangled in a huge feud that undoubtedly drew money but wasn't necessarily the main attraction. Most of Michaels' biggest moments had him right where he belonged - in the main event stopping the show.

 

[ajdb]

But Undertaker never changed wrestling. He introduced some stuff that went along with his character (buried alive, casket, etc), but these things were never used outside of him (and maybe Kane/Mankind).

You understand there's a PPV now based around the Hell in a Cell match which the Undertaker introduced?

Look, I really like both guys. Shawn Michaels was the better in-ring performer over all the WrestleMania matches he's had.

The Undertaker, while being very skilled in the ring, was never booked very well until probably WrestleMania 21. From there on Taker might have beaten Shawn. Since HBK was putting on great matches from the first time he walked into a WrestleMania, I'm not sure.

Who's better at WrestleMania? HBK

Who's better period? Taker.

 

[The Perfect Max]

The answer to this question is down to perspective. Together they are great and people eat it up. Apart they are very different and it splits people's opinion. Some Shawn Michaels fans take offence to The Undertaker being named the greatest, and vice-versa.

In my opinion, The Undertaker is head and shoulders above Shawn Michaels. Yes, I know that's incredibly true in regards to visuals, but I'm talking about career highlights, in-ring battles and Hall of Fame credentials.

To me, Taker did it all perfectly. From the get-go, there was something. His incredible 21-0 winning streak is all people talk about, but people forget that he's a former four-time WWE Champion, a three-time World Heavyweight Champion. Don't shoot me if they're incorrect, this is just from memory. He's also the winner of the 2007 Royal Rumble and won many tag team titles as well. His rivalry with Kane, whether it was in 1997 and 1998, 2004 or 2010, it was incredible. Even together, the Brothers of Destruction are a great duo. His encounters with Triple H, Kane, Brock Lesnar, Randy Orton, Edge, Batista, Stone Cold Steve Austin and even Shawn Michaels are classic and legendary in some cases. The Ministry of Darkness and later the Corporate Ministry was his reinvention. The American Bad Ass transition was an awesome three year run. The dead man is still alive and well after almost 25 years of dominance.

To me, Shawn Michaels doesn't live up to that. Then again, why can't he? The first grand slam champion, winning every championship possible; his key involvement with D-Generation X; Bret Hart and countless WrestleMania classics have made him incredibly popular. But I was never too much of a big fan.

I'd pick The Undertaker over Shawn Michaels every day of the week, but I can see the argument for HBK clearly.

 

[MCMG]

Absolutely it is Shawn Michaels. In the ring there is no one better. He put on classic matches at ease at all stages in his career. In a tag-team; as a mid-carder and then as the show-stopper. He became Mr. Wrestlemania and while The Streak is an awesome attraction, some of the matches are pretty poor. Not necessarily Taker's fault but HBK has stolen the show 7/8 times.

The ladder match with Hall is iconic helping define the match. He helped make the Hell in a Cell what it is and, of course, the boyhood dream that came true.

DX is a superb stable providing some great moments(during both runs), showing Shawn's versatility. The HBK gimmick was fantastic. The arrogance (which perhaps reflected reality) he displayed and the fact he was able to back it up was phenomenal. Many wrestlers have to tried imitate but have failed. No-one could do what HBK did in terms of constantly putting on high quality matches. He was also very good on the mic and was great at hyping matches.

I'm a huge fan of Taker. He is no doubt one of the best. Indeed, the greatest gimmick of all time but overall HBK beats him. Shawn Michaels is just too good.

 

[sbattsjr]

There are many people who perform better than michaels in the ring, Ricky steamboat is one example. But to your question. You have to look at what they do in the ring with green guys or guys who just wasn't good ex. Giant Gonzalez....I think Shawn is a hair better at making other guys look good... He made sid vicious look like a 5 star wrestler

 

[born_of_fire]

I think it's right to point out the parallels these men's careers have had. They've been with the WWE for roughly the same amount of time. They were the two top names to stay with the company during the mass defections to WCW and were heavily relied upon to keep it afloat. They have consistently been top attractions at WrestleMania. They've only had a handful of high profile, one-on-one matches, yet two of them ('97 Hell in a Cell and WM XXV) belong on any top 10 list of best WWE matches of all time.

At the same time, they are too different to say that one is strictly better than the other (and I say this as someone who's been an Undertaker fan since I was 12). The Undertaker is a guy who has had certain limitations inherent in his gimmick. He could never be THE man in the company in the way that Hogan or Austin could.

Shawn Michaels on the other hand could have attained that spot in theory, but by all accounts he allowed immaturity and personal problems to get in the way.

In terms of in-ring performance, HBK could deliver main event quality matches against just about anybody, in just about any venue. He evokes so much emotion because he clearly has limitless passion in the ring. He was always fun to watch, whether you were cheering him or booing him.

Taker doesn't generally get mentioned in lists of top in-ring performers of all time, but how many people would argue that he hasn't had THE best match at Mania for at least the last five years in a row? To me that's a more legitimately impressive fact than the 21-0 streak. On top of a long list of classic matches, the mere presence of The Undertaker on a show adds a level of theatricality and drama and "specialness" (for lack of a better word) that is unrivaled among superstars past or present.

They are extremely different performers who have played extremely different roles in the company. Neither have achieved the pinnacle of success that one would associate with a Hogan or an Austin, but both have achieved about as legendary a status as one can fathomably achieve without reaching that level. Ironically, they are about as different AND as similar as two wrestlers can be. Too different to compare, too similar to contrast, and too close to call.

 

[Pedigree1]

IN terms of in-ring ability HBK hands down.. HBK was quite the athlete in his day,moved quite well and really was quite strong. Taker was and is a beast. Never have i seen someone 6'10 330 pounds move like a cat. Amazing agility and strength. Both of them had the first HIAC match together,a classic not knowing how the match was going to turn out,they set the bar that very night. HBK was in the first ladder match,a classic and the inventor of that match..

The first match HBK stole the show indeed. Taker is 21-0 at WM,HBK's record while not that stellar has put on at least 7 great WM performances. Not takers fault,but HBK simply has outperformed him. 7 Time WWE/WHC champion,tag team champion six times over!! Undertakers gimmick though,is what sets him apart from anyone else past or present.

When the Undertaker retires one day,people are actually going to be grief stricken. No other superstar IMO in the history of the WWE has had the impact that the Undertaker has had. Both of them are legends and icons so to pick one above the other,i guess its just a matter of who you prefer! If Shawn wasn't such a asshole,back in the day he would win this one! Undertaker has never broken kayfabe that is what makes him one of the best ever!