Ill mention this again later in my post, but I feel that Austin is getting more pop culture votes as opposed to who people actually think would win. It also seems like some people are still bitter that Taker went over Cena, so maybe there are more votes against Taker than votes for Austin. What people are forgetting is that The Undertaker not only has the kayfabe endurance to go over Austin here, but no one has mentioned that The Undertaker has also won this very tournament before, and has proven to have the ability to win it all. The Undertaker was a huge heel and adversary to Austin during Austins peak, and even took the title from him.
The Undertaker was headlining WrestleManias when Austin was just a midcarder.
The Undertaker was in top feuds and was a main eventer when Austin was carrying around the Million Dollar Belt and fighting Savio Vega.
The Undertaker also, has beaten EVERYBODY. In big matches, in small matches, hes gone the distance, won titles, won gimmick matches, tournaments, fought the best of the best spanning across 20+ years, and is STILL a dominant force in wrestling. What I see is people voting for Austin because when he was hot, he was as hot as it can get in wrestling, but the bigger picture goes like this. When it comes down to who is the best of the best in the ring, and when it comes to pure longevity the Undertaker is the man. You think merchandise sales and movies make Austin the bigger star? I dont think everyone realizes how much of a household wrestling name the Undertaker is. His name is right up there with Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, The Rock, and Vince McMahon when it comes to non-wrestling fans knowing who the guy is. Austin had a bad ass T-Shirt and a great gimmick, but Taker also has a great gimmick.
You also have to vote for Taker because the guy has evolved with the business and has stayed relevant through it all. Hes adjusted and adapted, and always improved his in ring psychology, and like wine has gotten better with age. Austin was better on the mic
so what. The Undertakers gimmick doesnt require much talking. As a performer, the Undertaker has shown that he can stand the test of time, and his longevity on the top is an amazing feat in of itself. Just to be in the ring with the Undertaker is an honor at this point in time simply off of the strength that the guy has done it all. Austin, mostly due to injuries still had a little bit more to do (and its apparent there is no true closure because everyone wants him to STILL come back and wrestle). The Undertakers Legacy when its all said and done will be enormous, and although he may not be the pop culture icon that Hogan, Rock, or Austin were, he is a wrestling icon and is equally as large as all 3 of those men. I feel like Austin is getting votes because of his mainstream prominence, and not so much off of who would actually win this match.
Kayfabe move wise? Austin suffered a broken neck. Takers finishers are Hells Gate, and the fucking Tombstone.
I highly doubt people are voting "pop culture" or against Taker to avenge Cena's loss. I don't care about Taker winning a fake tournament before, I care about him losing more often to Austin, in the ring, than winning. Austin OWNED Taker throughout their careers, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
When did Taker headline Mania while Austin was a midcarder? Taker headlined Mania 13, against Sid, and it was basically a double main event. Bret and Austin was a FAR superior match to Taker/Sid, and had just as much hype going in, if not more. Austin and Bret Hart were far more over than Sid, and were at least equal to Taker at that time.
Austin started off as a mid-carder because that's what he was in WCW. Taker was a mid-carder, or even less in WCW, before he came to the WWF, so once again, I'm not seeing how that makes Taker any better than Austin. Taker was there first, and was really over. Nothing against Taker, but you shouldn't be holding that against Austin either. Taker came around in 1990, and won the title exactly a year later. But he held it for less than a month (I believe), and didn't see it again for years. So comparing who did what, early in their career, is pointless. Their basically equal in that regard, and that's being kind to Taker.
Taker did/does have a great gimmick, you're right. But he is not a household name with non-fans. Steve Austin was. Forget his movies, he was a household name during the Attitude Era, among non-wrestling fans. He was the biggest name in pro wrestling during it's biggest, most profitable era. Taker has had the longer career, but it's hardly been more successful. I would say, in terms of their entire career, they are equal when it comes to overall success. Also, it's not like Austin
wanted to retire because he was sick of the business, etc. He had a lot of health concerns. And the major health concern, his neck, was not brought upon him by himself. Owen Hart almost killed the guy.
Who hasn't Austin beaten? He's beaten The Rock, Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley, HHH, Kurt Angle, Ricky Steamboat, Yokozuna, THE UNDERTAKER, etc., etc. The only guys Austin never defeated were the ones he didn't face. Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Andre, etc. never faced Austin (not in his prime).
Austin's not winning this vote because he SHOULD win? With these two, it's so close in terms of who had the better career, you have to go by the past. And in the past, Austin dominated Taker. Austin took that series of matches, hands down, it's not even up for debate. So, no, I'm not voting for Austin because of "pop culture" or any other assumption you are making. I'm mainly voting for him due to the fact he has always been dominant over his opponent here in the finals..The Undertaker.
