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

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I really don't think there's an objective way of saying which guy is "better". You can compare title reigns, biggest matches, legacy, or whatever but in the end it's going to be an opinion that places one over the other.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's say I build a really nice top-of-the-line deskptop computer withe elite specs that is, statistically, the nicest computer you can make on the market. It's got a killer graphics card, a giant SSD, gigs on gigs on gigs of RAM, etc etc. Now let's say somebody else builds a fantastic top-of-the-line desktop as well. Maybe they use different parts - AMD instead of Intel, maybe - but in the end the specs come out exactly the same.

How do you judge which is better? Should you download dozens of programs and see how it handles them all? See who can run Netflix, Skyrim at max settings and use Skype video calling at the same time, while streaming to Twitch? Clock it and see who is running hotter? Maybe it's which computer lasts the longest - so we'd have to wait 4,5,6 years to find out.

See what I'm getting at? We could talk matches, titles, opponents, eras, whatever - it's still going to come down to some sort of opinion. Computers are even a bit more objective, because there's data and stuff you could do, but it would be incredible complex and there'd still be people debating about it. Pro wrestling is that, plus it's a make-believe world where those stats and titles can mean totally random things. For instance, they both won Royal Rumble matches. Can we actually define who's was better? Is it up to them or the Rumble as a whole?

This is why I think trying to decide who is #1 and #2 is kind of silly. I put together top ten lists every week, and I'm pretty adamant that most of the top the top 3 or 4 can be taken apart and placed in different orders depending on the day.

Now, putting all that aside... I want to ask a question for the sake of discussion. If they are really that insanely close that we need to run a poll to find out who wins, shouldn't the deciding vote go to their WrestleMania matches? Taker won both, right? Then again, wins and losses are predetermined and ultimate we're judging creative, not the wrestler. You want to talk about who performed better in those matches? I'd say HBK for the second. The first is pretty damn hard to tell.

Good luck in your quest!

 

[rge2010]

It is very objective. What I will say is both reached that same level and were never 'the man' like Rock, Austin, Hogan or Cena.

I call this a tie. Both are superb performers, had longevity at the top and will be remembered for a hole load of 5 star matches.

 

[GameOver]

HBK hands down, as much as there's great respect for Taker

HBK takes it in match quality, entertainment, performance, biggest spots, and the most 5 star matches

Taker would get the nod in the work ethic and respectibility tho thats not an argument, he's been there through thick and thin and you never hear of him kicking up a fuss well except one of the WrestleMania's he missed due to an injury and a contract dispute but like Andre the Giant before him he's the boss in the locker room

 

[GameOver]

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.

and thats all your opinion which you are entitled too, but i disagree Taker was a better talker he wasn't a talker unless absolutely necessary, but when he did it was imposing and one other thing, Taker has the better entrance hands down.
and ratings dropping when HBK held the title had little to do with him and more to do with the fact that all the WWF workhorses went to WCW along with big sponsors and advertising. same argument can be said for anyone who didn't immediately become huge, ratings have dropped when alot of greats have held the title, that doesn't mean it's there fault it just means people maybe weren't interested in the product as a whole maybe the rest of the card around HBK was pretty average he didn't have alot to work with even if he wasnt a diva.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

Depends on what you mean better? HBK was the superior in ring wrestler. HBK is probably the greatest in ring American wrestler to have ever worked. The Undertaker, as a character is the most enduring and successful gimmick ever- a gimmick that would not have been anywhere nears as successful had Mark Callaway not been in the role.

The thing is; if you look back on their careers in the WWE/WWF at each phase of their careers they left something amazing for the fans in each phase.

But if we went on who is the best in the ring - HBK.

 

[RicSpade]

This is debatable because they are better then each other in different aspects and levels for example HBK was a better wrestler, but Taker was a better talker, excitement level when both men come out are about even. Taker had more high profile matches in his career then HBK but he also started out as a main eventer defeating Hulk Hogan for his first WWF championship while broke out of a tag team dominated a mid card and then became the WWF champion in a spectacular iron man match.

Honestly if I had to choose one it would be HBK based on my preference, but I feel like HBK missed out on so many matches during the attitude era and in the era now with guys like CM Punk, Daniel Bryan I mean Undertaker can still go and his Wrestlemania matches are legendary he is known for breaking the mold with guys like HBK doing Hell in a Cell and Casket matches, but again HBK helped build those matches, a lot of the memorable matches Taker had were with HBK. I can list 10 matches I thought were amazing that didn't involve Taker, on Taker side I can name maybe 5-6.

 

[TheCrabtree]

Undertaker is the greatest character wrestler of all time.

But Michaels? The man is something else entirely. As big a prima donna as he could be, he did it all and did it well. Yes the four biggest stars ever may be Sammartino, Hogan, Austin and Cena. But for me, Taker and Shawn are well above all 4 of those. Shawn loved himself too much to become as big a star as he could've been. Takers gimmick stopped him in ways. Can't have Taker from years ago granting make a wish, and Shawn simply didn't care if it wasn't about him.

Shawn's number 1. But both at their best were simply awesome.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Undertaker has 7 World Championships, a Hardcore Championship, as well as 7 Tag Team Championships (Stone Cold, Big Show, The Rock, and Kane), Royal Rumble winner of 2007 and last but not least we have of course his legendary undefeated streak.

Shawn Michaels has 4 World Championships, a European Championship, 3 Intercontinental Championships, 2 time Royal Rumble winner (1995, 1996), and 6 Tag Team Championships (with Diesel, Stone Cold, John Cena, and Triple H).

Looking at their in-ring accomplishments, The Undertaker has achieved more. I have to go with HBK though. No one else amongst Taker's undefeated streak victims made the streak appear to be in as much as danger as Michaels did and he is also the better of the two in the ring as well as on the mic. It's a VERY close call though since both are among the greatest of all time.

 

[Sundar]

Taker has rarely lost cleanly in his career and has never lost by submission if I remember correctly. He needed to win almost all the time in order to get over and become the legend that he is today. This is why many feel that the WM streak shouldn't be broken and that breaking it would ruin Taker's legacy.

Michaels on the other hand during his second run lost pretty much every title match that he was involved in, apart from Survivor Series 2002. For the next 8 years he continued to be a main eventer and even though he lost all of those matches he was still able to keep fans entertained and steal the show. His Wrestlemania win/loss record is rather poor as well and the only victories he had at WM since 2002 were against Jericho (with a rollup) and against Vince (who isn't evena wrestler). He lost all his other WM matches since his return yet he still stole the show and is fondly remembered by many as Mr. Wrestlemania and as the best performer ever.

To me this makes Michaels the better wrestler overall. He didn't need to be booked strongly and win almost all the time in order to become a legend whereas Taker did.

 

[L@RISANO]

Taker has rarely lost cleanly in his career and has never lost by submission if I remember correctly. He needed to win almost all the time in order to get over and become the legend that he is today. This is why many feel that the WM streak shouldn't be broken and that breaking it would ruin Taker's legacy.

Michaels on the other hand during his second run lost pretty much every title match that he was involved in, apart from Survivor Series 2002. For the next 8 years he continued to be a main eventer and even though he lost all of those matches he was still able to keep fans entertained and steal the show. His Wrestlemania win/loss record is rather poor as well and the only victories he had at WM since 2002 were against Jericho (with a rollup) and against Vince (who isn't evena wrestler). He lost all his other WM matches since his return yet he still stole the show and is fondly remembered by many as Mr. Wrestlemania and as the best performer ever.

To me this makes Michaels the better wrestler overall. He didn't need to be booked strongly and win almost all the time in order to become a legend whereas Taker did.

Taker's booking was consistent with his character/gimmick... booking Taker like any other wrestler would have ensured that the Undertaker gimmick would have been finished much earlier in terms of being an attraction and a Main Event calibre one at that.

 

[RedRegan1005]

Wow. This is tough one. Especially for me as you can tell by looking at my signature. If this is first thread in you're series than I'm afraid to see what tough match ups will come as we get deeper into it. Anyways lets think about this one. Michaels, or Undertaker? Mmm . .

Shawn Michaels- Rightfully so, has the nicknames of Mr. Wrestlemania, and the showstopper. As far has in ring ability go he's one of the greatest. Left for four years due to a severe injury before coming back, but his time since returning was actually better than when he was the top guy and WWE champ in the company. If i'm in the main event of mania, and see Michaels has a match earlier on the card, I'm worried. Because unless you deliver a five star match Michaels will most likely steal the show right out from under you. Especially in his second WWE run in the ring. He wasn't the closing match but was part of the best match hands down on WrestleMania 19, 21, 24 and 25. He also had the best match in the main event at WM 26. Earlier in a post I talked about how a wrestler had great flow in the ring. Shawn Michaels has great flow in the ring. He goes from move to move without it looking planned, or awkward. He' also great on the mic most of the time but is more known for his great in ring skill.

The Undertaker- The Phenom has a gimmick that would be close to impossible to get over in todays world where gimmicks are more realistic. The only current act that is somewhat similar is Bray Wyatt, and he is doing spectacular at it by the way. If you made you're decision on this topic based off of in ring when they debuted in WWE, in would hands down go to Michaels. Undertaker wasn't great in the ring when he started in 1990 but as time went on he got better and better. For the last decade I've always considered The Demon from Death Valley to be one of WWE's best performers. Every time he made changes to his gimmick, he added to his in ring style, and got better and better. He's not as much of a techtician in ring as Michaels. Michaels is a better technical wrestler, but technical wrestling has never been taker's style and he has become one of the best when it comes to his style of wrestling. He also has good ability on the mic. When he started he rarely spoke, as time went on he spoke more and more. The most during his American Bad Ass year, and then has toned back to less talking sense returning to being the Deadman. Either way he has always had a great understadning of his gimmick and it has shown in his good promos. Many give alot of the credit of his success to his gimmick. But that not fair. When he became the American Bad Ass his character was much more realistic, and he was still great.

My Decision- The Undertaker. Some may say I'm crazy, and some may say they agree with me. But after going back and forth on it i couldn't decide. So i picked the man that I chose when i first read the title, before begging to think about it and break it down. My gut says Undertaker , and I'm going with my gut on this one.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I'd have to say that they are nearly even, but HBK is slightly ahead. Undertaker has a great gimmick and that's part of what puts him up there. His entrance alone is an attraction. I remember my first Smackdown event, we couldn't stay the whole show because we needed to make curfew(tech school) so we agreed that we would at least see Taker make his entrance(he main evented against Chavo). It was awesome just watching him. I remember, as a kid, when ever I played the "WWF Attitude" game on playstation, I'd just watch their entrances over and over again, with Taker's being most notable.

I think HBK overall had more charisma, and better ring work. Taker is excellent in the ring, but Michaels has him beat. As far as mic work goes, I liked Taker's work back in 98-99. I think they are both on par as far as mic work goes. When I look back at the ABA Taker and the Deadman Inc Taker, he was just less impressive. He was a solid worker and a great big man, but without the gimmick, HBK surpasses him.

 

[That One Guy]

Both are incredible, but I firmly believe that HBK is the best wrestler of all time. His in ring abilities were top notch, his mic skills were fantastic, he told wonderful stories, and he could wrestle anybody and have the best match on the card. Hell, his match with Vince was voted match of the year by PWI for some reason. HBK isn't just one of the greats, he's the greatest.

 

[jameyt2003]

I say Shawn Michaels when I think of match quality and entertainment. I say Undertaker when I think of contribution and professionalism.

Shawn was a workhorse style wrestler like Ric Flair while Undertaker always resembled a Hulk Hogan in his approach to performing. Of course he didn't do the exact things Hogan did but his aim was the same. To captivate the audience through aura. Guys like Michaels and Flair earned it through working.

I love them both the same and couldn't imagine a pro wrestling world without them.

btw, I voted for Taker.

 

[roipdh123]

For me it is Michales and the reason why is because he has been number one in his prime unlike The Undertaker.