WrestleZone Tournament Finals: The Undertaker vs. Randy Savage

[Shocky]

The Undertaker vs. Macho Man Randy Savage​

The Following match is the Final Match of the 2nd Anual Wrestlezone Tournament. This match takes place in Orlando, Florida, at the Citrus Bowl. This match is conducted under basic wrestling rules with a four sided ring. This match is conducted under "King of the Ring" style format, meaning, this is the third match of the evening for both wrestlers.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Annnd here we GO. Ladies and gentleman, the person who should win this tournament, is The Undertaker. And ill explain why.

Fatigue
Randy Savage has SURVIVED two WARS here tonight. Barely went over Triple H, The Game, and BAAAAREELY squeked by the Mastadon Vader. He, no doubt, has injuries, and fatigue, like none other, especially being a much smaller man than his combatant in the last match. The Undertaker, on the other hand, has had two fairly easy matches, either way you slice it, wether it be by statistics of past matches, or numerical advantages in voting. The Undertaker is taylor made to slay giants, and won his first match by a large margin. He also mopped the floor with a SPENT HBK, every time they have wrestled, and in voting. Undertaker is very obviously WAY ahead on the fatigue factor. Besides the fact, that in his prime Undertaker was an unstoppable ghoul, who felt no pain.

Big Match experience
Undertaker has a MUCH better track record in high profile, one-on-one matches. 15-0 in WM, 5 time champion, and defeated Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania, for the world title. Savage on the other hand, has been a loser in the vast majority of his high profile title matches at Wm, sans WM 8. Lost the IC belt to Steamboat at WM 3, lost The WWF title to Hogan at WM 5, lost his CARREER to Ultimate Warrior at WM 7. Undertaker owns Savage in high profile/title match success, AND title reighns.

Undertaker is the better wrestler
I will probably catch shit for this, and thats fine, becuase its very very close and debatable. I base this off of The Undertakers ability to enhance himself over the years. He has only developed into a better striker, and has evolved a very effecient reprtoir of submission holds. Savage, as great as he was, never did this, and never really evolved. While what he did was EXCELLENT, he never really improved or evolved, nor did he stay relevant for as long. Randy Savage is making underground rap CDs right now. Undertaker is winning the WHC in the main event of WM next sunday. You tell me who is the better wrestler...

 

[klunderbunker]

I think Shocky is doing what he did before by waiting 2 days so we discuss more.

That being said, I don't know who to vote for yet. As for endurance, there is no way that Savage is anywhere close to the energy level that Taker would have at this point. I would think here that Taker would be the favorite based on this alone, but at Wrestlemania 4, the basic storyline of the finals were that savage had had too much taken out of him to be able to pick up the win. I'm still split on this one so for now I'm going to withhold my vote.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I think Shocky is doing what he did before by waiting 2 days so we discuss more.

That being said, I don't know who to vote for yet. As for endurance, there is no way that Savage is anywhere close to the energy level that Taker would have at this point. I would think here that Taker would be the favorite based on this alone, but at Wrestlemania 4, the basic storyline of the finals were that savage had had too much taken out of him to be able to pick up the win. I'm still split on this one so for now I'm going to withhold my vote.

Yes it was the storyline of WM 4. And savage needed a huge assist from Hulk Hogan to triumph there. And his two matches from THAT night were nowere NEAR what he wouldve had to go through up until this point, after having two absolute wars with the Game Triple H, and Vader. That night, Savage went over two jobbers, and had an assist from Hulk Hogan. On this night, he went over two of the best of all time, and there is no one around to help him. Savage will R.I.P.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Well, this is just weak. I've spent the past few days mentally preparing arguments for Vader/Taker but I guess I'll just have to be raw when arguing this.

First, let's establish the scene. The most fundamental thing to remember first is that Savage has roughly 78% fatigue at this point, Undertaker has 51% taken out of him. That's a 27% difference, a 27% advantage that Undertaker has (even wider than his one against Shawn Michaels) and ultimately, I think it will be a large factor in why Savage loses this. I don't care what you say, Savage has had the much harder battles, the numbers do not lie.

Savage is an absolute legend, one of the best of all time. Hell, he may even be better than the Undertaker. Maybe. However, with a 27% advantage and Undertaker's slow rate of energy burn, as well as his size and leverage advantage, with a chance for submissions to be applied and for Savage to be locked down, worn out and have the big moves hit on him... this tournament belongs to the deadman.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

let me educate EVERYONE on the WM 4 tournament, and Savage.

The total time for Savage, at WM 4 is roughly 25 minutes. So everyone tell me, what is more impressive, Savage going 25 minutes TOTAL in one night, or Undertaker going 30 minutes straight with Kurt Angle?? how about 25 minutes with Austin, Hart and Vader?? 30 minutes in a cell with HBK??? Taker has just as good, or superior stamina as Savage, based on all this. Savage had rest in between his matches at WM 4. This is not to say he never went for long matches, its to try and squelch all this chatter about Savage becuase of his success in tournaments.

 

[Agrex]

Here we are, in the final of the WrestleZone Tournament, and we're down to two men, 'The Deadman' The Undertaker, and 'Macho Man' Randy Savage. I can't say that both of these men are better than of those they have beat in this tournament to be in the finals, but they are sure as hell deserving to be here. Now let's break this down to see who should be the winner.

First off lets start with stamina. The Undertaker, has always been a wrestler that is more than capable of pulling off a long match. Randy Savage on the other hand isn't as known for doing long matches. During the King of the Ring stage of this tournament, The Undertaker had to beat The Big Show, and The 'Heart Break Kid' Shawn Michaels. While Randy Savage had to beat 'The Game' Triple H, and 'The Mastadon' Big Van Vader. Randy Savage's victories were way closer than those of The Undertakers. So, stamina wise The Undertaker wins this.

As for the question, who is the better wrestler? In my opinion that's The Undertaker. While Randy Savage is great at what he does in the ring, in my opinion, it's no match to what The Undertaker does. The Undertaker has proved himself to be a brawler. Most of his moveset are brawl type moves (i.e upper cut, big boot..), but recently we've seen a new side to The Undertkaer, a technical side to The Undertaker. So, The Undertkaer has learned to adapt to a new style. That is why The Undertaker also wins this part of the battle.

When it comes down to it, Randy Savage is great, but The Undertaker is better. The Undertaker has no fears, or pains, he is The Deadman. The Undertaker beat the winner of the last WrestleZone Tournament (Shawn Michaels), so that is another reason why he sould win. All in all, in my opinion, the winner of the second ever WrestleZone Tournament should be, The Undertaker.

 

[Skillz]

It's silly how people are voting based on who would win in a shoot. Since when was pro wrestling a shoot? Who cares if Undertaker had an easier path to the final? This is pro wrestling, it's a work, not a shoot fight. In the world of pro wrestling, Vader would never go over Austin, Kane would never go over Hart, and Triple H would never go over Hogan. And, in the world of pro wrestling, Savage has just as much of a chance of beating Undertaker, as Undertaker has of beating Savage, even though Savage has had the tougher matches.

At KOTR '93, Bret Hart went through 2 tough matches against Razor Ramon and Mr. Perfect (30 minutes of total combined action) to get to the final, while Bam Bam Bigelow beat Jim Duggan in less than 5 minutes, then got a bye to the final. Going by a lot of people's voting in this tounament, Bigelow should have beat Hart in a walk. But he didn't. Why? Because it's all a work. It's that simple.

Therefore, in my opinion, voting should be based on who was the better pro wrestler. Both Undertaker and Savage are great wrestlers, but Savage was simply better. Undertaker has never had a non-gimmick match anywhere near as good as Savage vs. Steamboat and Savage vs. Warrior. I would say that Savage is the most complete wrestler of all-time. He had great charisma, was a great draw, had many classic matches, was great at storytelling and workrate... you name it, Savage was brilliant at it.

So, Savage should beat Undertaker and become the winner of this tournament, because he deserves it, and because he is the better wrestler.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

OK sir, so say this is non shoot pro wrestling. And how much was savage ever booked to cleanly go over in a high profile match?? Or was Savages BEST talent making the other guy look like a million bucks in a losing effort? You used Steamboat Vs Savage and Savage Vs UW in your examples. You know something that was simular in those two? After a great preformance, HE LOST. Vs Hogan, WWF title, WM 5. HE LOST. Savage, over his carreer, has never been booked to win the huge match, the last match of the evening. And thats exactly what this is. And there is no way, that you can logically tell me that under lights this bright, Savage would EVER go over Taker.

And plus, yea, people are looking at this as somewhat of a shoot. And the fatigue factor DOES come into play. To start using the "oh well this isnt a shoot" logic NOW is a fairly weak argument. If this was about being the best pro wrestler, Id imagine Bret Hart and Edge wouldve gotten further, among others. So dont try to come with that stuff now. Thats the way this thing works from what I understand, so deal with it.

 

[Skillz]

OK sir, so say this is non shoot pro wrestling. And how much was savage ever booked to cleanly go over in a high profile match??

Going over "cleanly" isn't really important if it's a non shoot pro wrestling match which you are suggesting. What is important is simply going over.

Or was Savages BEST talent making the other guy look like a million bucks in a losing effort? You used Steamboat Vs Savage and Savage Vs UW in your examples. You know something that was simular in those two? After a great preformance, HE LOST. Vs Hogan, WWF title, WM 5. HE LOST.

That is true, and is a good argument for Undertaker. Savage did lose many big matches, but not all of them. But he always put in a great performance, which just shows how great a wrestler Savage was.

Savage, over his carreer, has never been booked to win the huge match,

WM's 4 and 8.

the last match of the evening.

WM 4.

And thats exactly what this is. And there is no way, that you can logically tell me that under lights this bright, Savage would EVER go over Taker.

Over the course of their careers, Savage and Undertaker are about equal in looking at who was the bigger star. If anything, Savage in his prime was a bigger star than Undertaker ever was.

When was Undertaker EVER the top guy in the WWE? For more than a few months? Never. He's only main-evented WM ONCE! (Savage did it twice). Once in 15 years. And he wasn't even meant to main-event it that year, it was supposed to be Hart/HBK at WM 13.

Savage was the number 1 guy in the WWE for a whole year, during the PEAK of Hulkamania. If there was no Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage would have been the clear number 1 guy of his era. Undertaker has always been at best, the number 3 or 4 guy in the WWE. He's always been over-shadowed by the Hogan's, Hart's, Austin's, Rock's, Cena's, etc.

Therefore it would be VERY logical to suggest that Savage could beat Undertaker. Unless this match was at WM.

And plus, yea, people are looking at this as somewhat of a shoot. And the fatigue factor DOES come into play.

Of course it does, but not as much as people are making it out to be.

To start using the "oh well this isnt a shoot" logic NOW is a fairly weak argument.

Why? Pro wrestling isn't a shoot, so why should we be acting like it is?

If this was about being the best pro wrestler, Id imagine Bret Hart

Along with Hogan, Austin, etc.

and Edge

Not Edge.

wouldve gotten further, among others. So dont try to come with that stuff now. Thats the way this thing works from what I understand, so deal with it.

I have dealt with it, and I know that's how this thing works. But it's not how pro wrestling works.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Including next sunday, that would be THREE wrestlemania main events for Taker. And Savage only won the Big one at WM 4 with the help of a chair shot from Hogan. regardless of if he was the champ, Savage was never the main guy in the WWE, even DURING his year as champ. There was more focused on the Mega powers tag team, and their eventual splitting, that Savage carrying the company. Add to that the fact that Savage NEVER beat Hogan, while Undertaker HAS, and during Hulkamania as well.

Were this supposed to REALLY be about pro wrestling, Bret Hart wouldve gone over Kane. But dont get me started on that LOL. And like I said earlier, even still if this was totally based off of pro wrestling, Savage would NEVER be booked to go over Undertaker in a one on one high profile match. And what would you rather have? 15 years of being top 3 most successfull, popular guys in the company, or 1 year of sharing the spotlight with Hulk Hogan??? I would say based on THAT criteria as well, that the Undertaker is better. And the reason that they havent had taker as the lead head of the company, is becuase Taker can maintain a level of popularity WITHOUT gold around his waist, The Undertaker almost transcends championship gold. The Undertaker is almost something bigger than mere championship belts. Which explains why so many of his Mania matches have been some of the main selling points of many WMs, put on the same tier (or in some cases ABOVE) the title matches....

Not to say Savage wouldnt put on an amazing match with Taker. But A tired down barely still breathing Savage doesnt get booked to go over a fairly untaxed Undertaker. Not here. Not EVER.

 

[DJ]

The Simple fact is Savage had a harder route to the final.Therefore hes wore out.How the hell can he survive Taker the guy who,had a easier path?Taker also has the power game,the height advantage and some mind games he can thorw in.Taker is your new WZ Tournament Champ peoples.

 

[Dylanis]

I vote Taker off of the fatigue factor.

Let's look at it this way based off of what Uncle Sam posted number wise. Savage has 22/100 left while Undertaker has 49/100.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Savage is the better wrestler. So every minute, he is able to take "2 points" off Taker while Taker only takes "1 point" off of Savage.

22 minutes later, Savage has 0 stamina left while Undertaker still has 7. And this is while giving Savage a MAJOR advantage. Let's say the numbers were even, where 'Taker would lose 3 and Savage would lose - the Undertaker would still have 16 "points" left once Savage wears out.

The wrestling skill is too close of a call, so the fatigue has to be the main factor. Unless you're convinced Savage is basically heads-and-shoulders above Undertaker in the wrestling department, the deadman wins easy.

 

[Skillz]

Including next sunday, that would be THREE wrestlemania main events for Taker.

He's been in the last match at WM once (WM 13). On Sunday, it will be his third world title match at WM. Savage was in the last match of WM twice (WM's 4 and 5), and in a world title match 3 times (including WM 8). That's 3 out of 8 WM appearances for Savage, and 3 out of 16 for Undertaker, where they've had world title matches. Savage is averaging being in a title match at WM twice as often as Taker.

And Savage only won the Big one at WM 4 with the help of a chair shot from Hogan.

So? That's all to do with booking. Oh, and I'm sure I remember DiBiase having Andre the Giant in his corner, interfering throughout the match, which was the whole reason for Hogan coming down anyway.

regardless of if he was the champ, Savage was never the main guy in the WWE, even DURING his year as champ. There was more focused on the Mega powers tag team, and their eventual splitting, that Savage carrying the company.

Even if he shared the spotlight with Hogan, he was still the equal top guy in the company. Which means he was still the number 1 guy, the main attraction. When Taker was champion in 1997, Austin's rise to the top of the WWE, and the Hart Foundation vs. USA storyline were the main focuses.

Add to that the fact that Savage NEVER beat Hogan, while Undertaker HAS, and during Hulkamania as well.

Hulkamania was not at it's peak at that point, it was slowing down. And how long did Undertaker hold the title for? 2 days?

And like I said earlier, even still if this was totally based off of pro wrestling, Savage would NEVER be booked to go over Undertaker in a one on one high profile match.

I've already explained why they'd have about an equal chance of going over if they wrestled in their primes.

And what would you rather have? 15 years of being top 3 most successfull, popular guys in the company, or 1 year of sharing the spotlight with Hulk Hogan???

Savage was always at least a top 3 guy from 1987-1992, and when he went to WCW he was still one of the major players.

And the reason that they havent had taker as the lead head of the company, is becuase Taker can maintain a level of popularity WITHOUT gold around his waist,

I agree to an extent. But, one of the main reasons Taker was never the top guy in the company, and never held the title for too long, is because there have always been bigger stars and bigger draws than him. When he first got there it was Hogan, Warrior and Savage. Then it was Hart and HBK. Then it was Austin, Rock and HHH. Now it's Cena.

Which explains why so many of his Mania matches have been some of the main selling points of many WMs, put on the same tier (or in some cases ABOVE) the title matches....

Which matches are those exactly??? WM 12 is remembered for the Ironman match, not Taker/Diesel. When he main-evented WM 13, it was completely over-shadowed by the Hart/Austin classic. His high profile match with Kane at WM 14 was over-shadowed by Austin/Tyson/HBK. His best ever match at WM against HHH was over-shadowed by Austin/Rock at WM 17. Taker/Flair was a forgetful mid-card match at WM 18. His return match at WM 20 was a letdown, and over-shadowed by the triple threat main event. Angle/HBK stole the show at WM 21, not Taker/Orton. Only at WM 23 could you argue that he had the best match/most memorable moment of the night. That's 1 in 15 WM's when he "stole the show". His WM streak is incredibly overrated.

At WM 3, the biggest and most hyped match of all-time happened, Hogan vs. Andre. But, Savage vs. Steamboat from that same night is talked about JUST AS MUCH as the main event. That's how good that match was. WM 4 was centered around Savage. He also had the best match at WM's 5, 7 and 8. That's 5 in 8 WM's when Savage "stole the show". That's far more impressive than Undertaker.

Not to say Savage wouldnt put on an amazing match with Taker. But A tired down barely still breathing Savage doesnt get booked to go over a fairly untaxed Undertaker. Not here. Not EVER.

There is no way this match should be seen as anything but a close call. If Bret Hart (after 30 minutes of grueling action against 2 top stars) can beat a monster like Bam Bam Bigelow (after 5 minutes of action in a squash match) in another grueling 20 minute match, then Randy Savage sure as hell can beat Undertaker in this situation. The stacks were set more against Hart then, than Savage here. Taker has wrestled 2 opponents leading up to this match, who were by no means walk-overs. Bigelow had it much easier, but still lost.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well does the fact that Taker has appeared at, and WON at DOUBLE the amount of WMs that Savage has, let on anything??? And not only that, but in all these show stealing appearances you are citing, all but ONE he LOST. And when He won the title, at WM 4, it was through a chairshot by Hogan. when he beat Flair at WM 8, it was with pulling the trunks. So on the TWO occasions were he DID win in high profile situations, he had to cheat do do so. How did Taker win his WM title matches?? Tombstone, arms folded, 1,2,3. About as clean and decisively as can be. And in all these matches you are naming, look at the level of competiton Savage was working with. Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat. Now look at the guys Taker got good matches out of. And regardless of Takers first title reighn being two days or not, he still went over Hogan. Which is something Savage couldnt, even at his apex. Wether he was billed as equal to Hogan or not, you and I BOTH know he wasnt the main attraction during that year.

Your last argument is also flawed becuase
Bret Hart > Randy Savage
Undertaker > Bam Bam Bigelow. quite simply.

Who has dominated more in big profile stages? Who is STILL around, main eventing WMs. Who is making rap CDs and "starring" in the surreal life.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Look, this isn't about who's the biggest star. I don't even think historical patterns are that important - I certainly proved that, otherwise Undertaker wouldn't even be here in the finals. Who would win in this environment is what's important. An argument for Savage is a fair argument, with a strong basis that Winged Eagle has already mentioned. However, just like the Taker/HBK match, this one comes down to what's left in the tank of both men. Do you believe that Randy Savage at least is, say, 27% better than a fresher Shawn Michaels? Do you believe that his chances of beating The Undertaker are at least 27% higher than Michaels' were? If so, then and only then can you vote Savage.

Savage is a deadman walking.

 

[HBK-aholic]

First, let's establish the scene. The most fundamental thing to remember first is that Savage has roughly 78% fatigue at this point, Undertaker has 51% taken out of him. That's a 27% difference, a 27% advantage that Undertaker has (even wider than his one against Shawn Michaels) and ultimately, I think it will be a large factor in why Savage loses this. I don't care what you say, Savage has had the much harder battles, the numbers do not lie.

Okay, all this number stuff. It doesn't mean that the matches were any less tough on certain indivdiuals, it just means that AFTER a hard fought battle more people thought Undertaker would come away with the win.

Anyway, I think Undertaker would walk away from this the winner. He deserves it after all. He's one of the best wrestlers, and has been for the last 16 years and counting. Very few people have the power to beat him, and Savage, as good as he is, isn't one of them.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Okay, all this number stuff. It doesn't mean that the matches were any less tough on certain indivdiuals, it just means that AFTER a hard fought battle more people thought Undertaker would come away with the win.

Yeah, so they'd have an easier match. Jesus Becca, stop repeating what I say.

Anyway, I think Undertaker would walk away from this the winner. He deserves it after all. He's one of the best wrestlers, and has been for the last 16 years and counting. Very few people have the power to beat him, and Savage, as good as he is, isn't one of them.

Yeah, what she said: "The Undertaker has a 27% advantage."

 

[Skillz]

Well does the fact that Taker has appeared at, and WON at DOUBLE the amount of WMs that Savage has, let on anything???

Undertaker's streak at WM is a great achievement, no doubt, but that doesn't stop it from being terribly overrated. Only in the past 5 years has the streak meant something.

And not only that, but in all these show stealing appearances you are citing, all but ONE he LOST. ]And when He won the title, at WM 4, it was through a chairshot by Hogan. when he beat Flair at WM 8, it was with pulling the trunks. So on the TWO occasions were he DID win in high profile situations, he had to cheat do do so.

Savage's tendency to lose in big matches does work in Taker's favor, I can't deny that. However, you seem to be forgetting some important facts about the matches Savage won. Hogan came down to help Savage because Andre was interfering in the DiBiase match. And in the Flair match, Flair was cheating throughout the entire match, Savage pulled the trunks to make it fair. This "cheating" was more about evening the odds, not really cheating.

regardless of Takers first title reighn being two days or not, he still went over Hogan. Which is something Savage couldnt, even at his apex.

The fact that it lasted a mere 2 days takes away a lot of it's significance.

Wether he was billed as equal to Hogan or not, you and I BOTH know he wasnt the main attraction during that year.

I disagree, he WAS the main attraction that year. It wasn't like when Benoit was champion, when HHH was the main focus of Raw. During Savage's reign he was the main focus of the entire company, along with Hogan. To be seen as level to Hogan during that era is an incredible achievement in itself.

Your last argument is also flawed becuase
Bret Hart > Randy Savage

That's arguable. In terms of overall ability they're pretty much equal.

Undertaker > Bam Bam Bigelow. quite simply.

Obviously, but Bigelow was by no means a walk in the park. Especially if you've wrestled for 30 minutes prior to facing a fresh Bigelow.

Who has dominated more in big profile stages?

The only big profile stage Taker has dominated in is WM. How many title opportunities has he had in his career when he's come out as the loser? Too many to count.

Who is STILL around, main eventing WMs.

He's only main evented 1 WM and that was 11 years ago, and this year I doubt it'll be his 2nd. Especially with Cena and HHH involved in the other title match.

Look, this isn't about who's the biggest star. I don't even think historical patterns are that important - I certainly proved that, otherwise Undertaker wouldn't even be here in the finals. Who would win in this environment is what's important. An argument for Savage is a fair argument, with a strong basis that Winged Eagle has already mentioned. However, just like the Taker/HBK match, this one comes down to what's left in the tank of both men. Do you believe that Randy Savage at least is, say, 27% better than a fresher Shawn Michaels? Do you believe that his chances of beating The Undertaker are at least 27% higher than Michaels' were? If so, then and only then can you vote Savage.

Savage is a deadman walking.

Undertaker won his matches with 86% and 62% of the votes, therefore 14+38=52% fatigue.
Savage won his matches with 71% and 52% of the votes, therefore 29+48=77% fatigue.
So the difference is actually closer to 25%, not 27%. Not much of a difference, but still a difference.

Now let's compare this logic to Hart/Bigelow from KOTR '93. (A match that actually happened).

Bigelow beat Duggan in 5 minutes, then got a bye to the final, so he had plenty of time to rest after his easy squash match. So I'd say, going into the final, he had only 5% fatigue, at most.
Hart beat Razor in over 10 minutes, in a close hard fought match, then beat Perfect in 19 minutes in an even closer hard fought match. So I'd say he lost about 25% fatigue from his first match, and another 40% from his second match. 25+40=65% fatigue (roughly).

Therefore, Bigelow had a (roughly) 60% fatigue advantage over Hart. And Hart still won! Bigelow even dominated the match. Taker only has a 25% advantage over Savage, which is WAY closer than Hart/Bigelow. Going by this logic, Savage has a GREAT chance of beating Taker. If Hart can overcome those kind of odds, then Savage can overcome these odds.

Savage and Hart are about the same in overall wrestling ability. Taker is obviously better than Bigelow. But how much better is a 52% fatigued Undertaker, than a 5% fatigued Bigelow? Thus making it VERY conceivable that Savage could win this match.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Undertaker's streak at WM is a great achievement, no doubt, but that doesn't stop it from being terribly overrated. Only in the past 5 years has the streak meant something.



Savage's tendency to lose in big matches does work in Taker's favor, I can't deny that. However, you seem to be forgetting some important facts about the matches Savage won. Hogan came down to help Savage because Andre was interfering in the DiBiase match. And in the Flair match, Flair was cheating throughout the entire match, Savage pulled the trunks to make it fair. This "cheating" was more about evening the odds, not really cheating.
.

Regardless of the circumstance, it doesnt change the fact that he needed an unfair advantage to secure the victory both times, wether the other guys were cheating as well. It doesnt change the fact that it in the very least makes those victories weaker, and pale in comparison to Takers victories. People would cheat and use unfair advantages all day and night against Taker, but the end result would always be the same. Tombstone, 1,2,3. No tights, no chair shots.

I disagree, he WAS the main attraction that year. It wasn't like when Benoit was champion, when HHH was the main focus of Raw. During Savage's reign he was the main focus of the entire company, along with Hogan. To be seen as level to Hogan during that era is an incredible achievement in itself.

well....was he the main attraction, or alongside Hogan?? there is no both...

To be seen as level to Hogan during the Hogan era was an incredible acheivment

but going over Hogan, especially in a HEEL role wasnt?? How many heels can you think of during the Hogan era that went over Hulk for the belt??

That's arguable. In terms of overall ability they're pretty much equal.
.

Not even close IMO. Bret Hart > Savage, by a head.

The only big profile stage Taker has dominated in is WM. How many title opportunities has he had in his career when he's come out as the loser? Too many to count.



He's only main evented 1 WM and that was 11 years ago, and this year I doubt it'll be his 2nd.

LOL so "dominating only on the WM stage" isnt enough for you to prove who is better in high profile situations??? Has Savage ever won a Royal RUmble?? Has savage had matches created especially off of him?? HOW MANY major shows has Taker been booked at the top of, in the main event for?? MANY more than Savage. And you can say "oh well Savage was around during the Hogan ME era" but you already said yourself that UT is "only in the top 3 or 4 every year"...so which is accaptable to you??

And im fairly sure Kane Vs Taker from 20 was slated as a main event. And Taker Vs Tista. And Edge Vs Taker is being billed as such. Are we now going to say that he last match is the only thing that is termed as "main event"?? Becuase that simply isnt true.

 

[Skillz]

well....was he the main attraction, or alongside Hogan?? there is no both...

The Mega-Powers was the main attraction, and Savage was an equal part of that. Therefore he was the main attraction.

but going over Hogan, especially in a HEEL role wasnt?? How many heels can you think of during the Hogan era that went over Hulk for the belt??

But it lasted for two days. He was just a transitional champion, the title change was used so that the belt could end up on Flair. It's not like that match started a whole new era for WWE.

Not even close IMO. Bret Hart > Savage, by a head.

Well that's your opinion. They're both two of the best ever, in my opinion.

LOL so "dominating only on the WM stage" isnt enough for you to prove who is better in high profile situations???

Even on the WM stage, half of those matches were glorified squashes, so they don't really count as "high profile situations". If it's high profile, then it's against a top opponent. Look at Taker's history against some of the top opponents in WWE. Sure he's won many high profile matches against them, but he's also lost many too. He's not as unbeatable as you and many others are making him out to be.

Has Savage ever won a Royal RUmble??

If Savage was in 10 Royal Rumbles like Taker was, I'm sure he would have won one.

Has savage had matches created especially off of him??

Has Hogan? Has Austin? They're the two greatest pro wrestlers of all time. This isn't important. He's only had a lot of matches created for him because of his gimmick.

HOW MANY major shows has Taker been booked at the top of, in the main event for?? MANY more than Savage. And you can say "oh well Savage was around during the Hogan ME era" but you already said yourself that UT is "only in the top 3 or 4 every year"...so which is accaptable to you??

Taker's consistently been one of the major players for 17 years, that's why when looking back, he's been in so many main events. Taker's been around when PPV's happen every month, that didn't happen in Savage's prime of 1987-1992.

And im fairly sure Kane Vs Taker from 20 was slated as a main event. And Taker Vs Tista. And Edge Vs Taker is being billed as such. Are we now going to say that he last match is the only thing that is termed as "main event"?? Becuase that simply isnt true.

The main event is the last match on the card. That's why it's called the "main" event. It's usually the match with the most hype, and the one that would be the biggest selling point of the show.

 

[Murfish]

Alright I have a few thoughts to add.

A) Please, stop trying to place numbers and simple "fact" on the stamina effect. Whether or not you choose to include it's effect stamina, both in wrestling and in real life, can't be put into such simple arguments. Especially in professional wrestling stamina doesn't weigh in that much. "Hulking Up" and face come-backs are predicated on the fact that professional wrestling doesn't regard stamina in a real-world way.

B) Many people seem to be confused about the Undertaker. You can't have this argument go both ways. Some people have sited both the stamina and dominance of the early Undertaker alongside the evolution and technical ability of the more recent Undertaker. CHOOSE one. Decide what you think his prime is and stick to it when establishing a legitimate argument.

C) As for the result of this match, I just hope that the Undertaker doesn't win. I find that he is incredibly overrated and I don't find him intriguing or enjoyable in the ring. I would have preferred to see this end differently as far as competitors go.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The Mega-Powers was the main attraction, and Savage was an equal part of that. Therefore he was the main attraction.
.

so even when he was the main attraction, HE wasnt the main attraction. Gah you know what? your right. Good man. LOL

But it lasted for two days. He was just a transitional champion, the title change was used so that the belt could end up on Flair. It's not like that match started a whole new era for WWE.
.

does it matter how long it lasted, or if he lost it later? or if it started a "new era" ??? No. Not really. And im still lacking understanding of how being selected to be "billed as equal" to Hogan (which I still feel is debateable since he was NEVER booked to go over Hogan in one on one competiton, and when they DID square off, he lost. wether he was champ or not, Hogan was still the top guy) is better than actually beating him. Im not convinced it is. Especially considering how new Taker was. He was still within his first year of competition for goodness sakes. Savage had been around for years already, and still never went over Hogan.

If Savage was in 10 Royal Rumbles like Taker was, I'm sure he would have won one.

actually Taker has been in 7 to savages 5. And has been around for a LOT more than Savage has. So yea.

Taker's consistently been one of the major players for 17 years, that's why when looking back, he's been in so many main events. Savage's prime 1987-1992.

yes im aware. But thanks anyway.

 

[Skullz Crack'Em]

I predict that The Undertaker will be winning the WZ Tournament this year, The Macho Man will have a very difficult time in this one, BUT anything is possible. As stated before, Taker has a greater stamina advantage over Savage and is very difficult to beat, even when someone is at full strength against the Deadman, but lets not discredit the Macho Man just yet. Randy Savage had a tough match against Triple H and an even tougher match against Vader earlier in the night, but he came out on top in both matches, which proves he is more focused than ever. Being in Orlando, Florida, Savage will have the momentum flowing through his veins and I could see him pulling out a huge victory over The Undertaker in his home state for a Fairy Tale Ending, this would be awesome IMO. Statistics wise, Taker has the better chance of winning, but who do I want to win? The Macho Man Randy Savage.

VOTE FOR SAVAGE!

 

[Skillz]

so even when he was the main attraction, HE wasnt the main attraction. Gah you know what? your right. Good man. LOL

Lol.

does it matter how long it lasted, or if he lost it later? or if it started a "new era" ??? No. Not really.

I think it does matter because Hogan beat him back for the title only two days later. If the reign lasted 4 or 5 months, then it would have meant something. It's the same as Kane beating Austin to become champion for one day, pointless.

And im still lacking understanding of how being selected to be "billed as equal" to Hogan (which I still feel is debateable since he was NEVER booked to go over Hogan in one on one competiton, and when they DID square off, he lost. wether he was champ or not, Hogan was still the top guy) is better than actually beating him. Im not convinced it is. Especially considering how new Taker was. He was still within his first year of competition for goodness sakes. Savage had been around for years already, and still never went over Hogan.

It isn't better than beating him. But it's still very good though, to be equal with the greatest pro wrestler of all time, during his prime. The ONLY wrestler to go over Hogan properly during that era was Warrior. The fact that Savage never beat Hogan in Hogan's prime shouldn't really be used against him. Because almost no one beat Hogan during his prime.

actually Taker has been in 7 to savages 5. And has been around for a LOT more than Savage has. So yea.

Just checked, Savage was in 5, Taker was in 9. Not really important for this debate though.