WZ Tournament Semi-Final: Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker

[Shocky]

The Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker​

The Following match is a Semi Final Match of the 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 second match of the evening for both wrestlers.

 

[klunderbunker]

To me this match is the better of the two. Michaels had a grueling match with Benoit, but Michaels seems to do better as the night goes on. Taker had a much shorter slugfest with the Big Show that probably caused a rib injury, as most Big Show matches do. As far as the match goes, I don't recall Michaels ever beating the Deadman clean before, although I could be wrong. That being said, I don't think he will break that streak tonight. Both of these men have quick finishers that can be hit at any given second, but I don't know if chin music is enough here. The tombstone on the other hand would be enough to put Michaels away though. Have to go with Deadman here, but I could also see Michaels taking it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

C'mon, to say that the 20% difference in advantages doesn't matter because he's Shawn Michaels is a kick in the balls to the deadman. Undertaker didn't break a sweat against the Big Show. HBK won convincingly enough, but not nearly by the margins that 'Taker did; and we all know Benoit would give 110% before being beaten, Show just sort of flops over.

With a (approximated, before you put my balls in a vice) 20% advantage given to Undertaker, there's no way he'll lose. Michaels would probably run away from the sight of the deadman towering over him. 'Taker takes it, no pun intended. There's some close moments, but the phenom keeps rollin' rollin' rollin', definitely.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

yea there is pretty much NO WAY the Undertaker loses, to an already emaciated shawn Michaels. The vote count against Benoit was atrocious, as that much shouldve, and wouldve been MUCH closer. Dont anyone try to sell me this HBK resiliancy shit either. Takers match with Show probably lasted all of 10 to 12 minutes. HBKs match with Benot probably lasted 20, at the VERY LEAST. That and the fact that HBK is probably suffering from a litany of limb damage, there is absolutely no way he can survive against a relatively fresh Undertaker. Even if both men were fresh, I would still vote Taker, let alone after HBK suffers through an absolute war with Benoit. And if you want to go into high profile records, Undertaker certainley has the advantge. Taker DOES NOT loose in high profile big match enviornments. I belive he is 15 and 0 or something crazy like that...

 

[HBK-aholic]

Yeah so here you have 2 of the biggest and best the WWE have ever produced. Definately would be a great match, and so hard to call. In general, I think this is going to be the closest called match.

I think this would go on for about 40 minutes, and we would see some of the best wrestling in the tournamnt here. They're pretty evenly matched in terms of what they've done in the ring, and no matter what, both are complete legends. Just remembering the Hell in a cell match they had is enough to bring shivers at the thought of this match.

In the end, I'm going with Shawn, because I think he deserves to win this tournament. He's one of the best, that's all there is to say. This match, especially after the one with Benoit would have taken it out of him, but what I'm going to have to base this on, is the wrestlers now, because when thinking about prime, it comes down to too many factors to decide againts either guy. Shawn is still one of the best on the roster, still as entertaining, and still as great in the ring. Undertaker is still great, nothing will ever take away from that. But recently, I don't get the same feel from his matches, the same electricity or the same excitement. I'd much rather watch Shawn in the ring today, than Undertaker.

 

[Uncle Sam]

In the end, I'm going with Shawn, because I think he deserves to win this tournament. He's one of the best, that's all there is to say.

And Undertaker isn't? Undertaker doesn't? The deadman is just as big as Michaels if not more. He's also just as entertaining as Michaels, the only difference being that Undertaker has actually improved of age. I'm not going to accuse you of fangirlism, for the simple fact that I'm pretty much a 'Taker fanboy.

This match, especially after the one with Benoit would have taken it out of him, but what I'm going to have to base this on, is the wrestlers now, because when thinking about prime, it comes down to too many factors to decide againts either guy. Shawn is still one of the best on the roster, still as entertaining, and still as great in the ring. Undertaker is still great, nothing will ever take away from that. But recently, I don't get the same feel from his matches, the same electricity or the same excitement. I'd much rather watch Shawn in the ring today, than Undertaker.

It's usually 'Taker that people get excited about these days, and Michaels who doesn't have the same electricity. For example, Undertaker will be becoming World Heavyweight Champion this WrestleMania, Shawn Michaels will be burying some old guy's career. At their primes, at their bests, with a 20% advantage even, Undertaker wins. No doubt.

 

[Lil Wes]

Meh, Beniot is a cake walk for HBK. Just overhyped and worshipped by smarks because he knows 1000 varations of a headlock.

Taker on the other hand had to take down a 500 pound beast. That's easily tougher than a little puny Beniot who HBK could defeat within 15 minutes.

And Undertaker isn't? Undertaker doesn't?

Not like HBK.

The deadman is just as big as Michaels if not more.

In terms of entertainment and better matches. HBK > Undertaker.

He's also just as entertaining as Michaels,

Taker is bland.

the only difference being that Undertaker has actually improved of age.

And yet at 42. HBK can outperform everyone on the entire roster. See: His feud with John Cena.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Meh, Beniot is a cake walk for HBK. Just overhyped and worshipped by smarks because he knows 1000 varations of a headlock.

Taker on the other hand had to take down a 500 pound beast. That's easily tougher than a little puny Beniot who HBK could defeat within 15 minutes.

So suddenly the fact that 'Taker has a 20% advantage means nothing because Wes decides. Big surprise.

Not like HBK.

Just like HBK.

In terms of entertainment and better matches. HBK > Undertaker.

Well, this is totally opinionated. Wes is here, however, so HBK > Taker = FACT.

Taker is bland.

Shawn Michaels is made out nineteen different spices and bursts into fire spontaneously. Please, Shawn Michaels is a bland sandwich from the Bland Cafe on Bland St. If Undertaker is anything close to bland, that is.

And yet at 42. HBK can outperform everyone on the entire roster.

Entire Raw roster maybe. Can he outperform the deadman? It's questionable.

 

[Lil Wes]

So suddenly the fact that 'Taker has a 20% advantage means nothing because Wes decides. Big surprise.

Yet Sam says some smartass "opinionated" comment. Big surprise.

You have yours. I have mine. Get over it.

Also, What 20% advantage are you talking about? Dumb question prolly but oh well.

Just like HBK.

True but give ME HBK over Undertaker anyday.

Well, this is totally opinionated. Wes is here, however, so HBK > Taker = FACT.

Yup.

Who has put on more classics? HBK

Who has put on better feuds? HBK

Who can put on a show better than anyone on the entire roster? HBK

Who is more entertaining? HBK

Shawn Michaels is made out nineteen different spices and bursts into fire spontaneously. Please, Shawn Michaels is a bland sandwich from the Bland Cafe on Bland St. If Undertaker is anything close to bland, that is.

Yeah, Excuse me for forgetting a cocky, arrogant, smartass entertaining wrestler is bland.

Wow, Undertaker's gimmick is just so fun to watch. Honestly..

Entire Raw roster maybe. Can he outperform the deadman? It's questionable.

Questionable? Now at this day in time. Maybe. But when you look at time in their prime and overall careers. HBK hands down.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I think a few people are putting a little too much stock in the differences in the voting. Just because Taker killed Big Show in the polls, doesn't mean it wasn't a tough match. It just means that most people felt that, AFTER a hard fought match, Taker would be the one to prevail. He most certainly did break one HELL of a sweat against Big Show.

And talk about a kick to the balls - to say Benoit wouldn't give Michaels the fight of his life is ridiculous. Hell, Benoit did it to HBK and HHH on the biggest stage in pro wrestling and came out World Champ. I know why people voted Michaels, but shit, Benoit would have forced HBK to escape or reverse the Crossface at least twice in a match.

Face it kids, both Taker and HBK are coming into this match a little banged up. 7 of the 8 men in the elite 8 deserved to be here (sans RVD) and the four men who deserved to advance, did. But for three of them, it had to be a dogfight.

Anyway, these two men worked so well together at Bad Blood, much like some of the other matches, I could occur 10 times and each man would win 5. So let's break it down.

Myth #1 - Michaels is in better shape, so he has an edge over Undertaker.

Not nessecarilly. Michaels also moves around faster, where as Taker is more deliberate. Taker won't get as winded, because a) he is stronger and is able to throw around the lighter Michaels easier than Michaels could do to him, and b) he dosn't run around or jump around a lot. He doesn't need as much endurance as Shawn.

Myth #2 - Taker has the edge because of his submission holds.

Most of the submission holds Taker puts on opponents is because those men allow themselves to get into prone positions following power moves. Michaels is smarter, can slip away, and doesn't use many power moves. If Michaels loses, it will be via pinfall thanks to a tombstone or last ride. Also, Shawn uses submission just fine as well.

The crowd will be even. Split right down the middle.

In his prime, Taker had Paul Bearer. Michaels may or may not have had either Jose Lothario or dX. So, negation.

I mean, this is a total "pick'em" situation. No bookie in vegas would have a line. And I pick...I don't know yet.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I think a few people are putting a little too much stock in the differences in the voting. Just because Taker killed Big Show in the polls, doesn't mean it wasn't a tough match. It just means that most people felt that, AFTER a hard fought match, Taker would be the one to prevail. He most certainly did break one HELL of a sweat against Big Show.
.

But IC, I would venture to say that based upon the posts that were made, AND the overwelming amount of votes, that many did feel it would be a fairly easy victory for Taker. And based on the posts and heavy debate on the HBK-Benoit match, I think it proves its a MUCH tougher match.

The Undertaker is KNOWN for being put with peices of shit, and making them look like shiny peices of shit. The vast majority of his feuds have been with terrible wrestlers, who he carried to at least somewhat entertaining matches. And like it or not, Undertaker excites and captivates fans more than HBK does, now, and always has. And this is the NOW versions of both men. The in his prime Undertaker NEVER lost EVER. I belive he lost something like only a handfull of matches in his first 8 to 10 years around. The Undertaker was absolutely unstoppable Monster during his prime, and has only improved all aspects of his game. Im not saying HBK has declined, but he certainley isnt improved. And the fact that Taker is more captivating and exciting than HBK is no fault of Shawn's its just simply Takers gimmick, and his mystique. Its just the way it is.

And its just impossible for me, in ANY one on one contest to bet AGAINST Undertaker. He's the FUCKING UNDERTAKER lol. And like I said before, in the clutch, in high profile, do or die, colassal battles, Undertaker comes out on top, more than maybe anyone.

 

[HBK-aholic]

And Undertaker isn't? Undertaker doesn't? The deadman is just as big as Michaels if not more. He's also just as entertaining as Michaels, the only difference being that Undertaker has actually improved of age. I'm not going to accuse you of fangirlism, for the simple fact that I'm pretty much a 'Taker fanboy.

fangirlism?

Undertaker is bigger than Shawn in what? Better matches? More entertaining? More energy? More livliness? Because if you say yes to any of them you watch a different show to me.

And are you saying shawn hasn't improved? Honestly? That claim is laughable. Undertaker at the moment, isn't the best person to watch to put it nicely. Shawn on the other hand is still better than most of the roster.

It's usually 'Taker that people get excited about these days, and Michaels who doesn't have the same electricity. For example, Undertaker will be becoming World Heavyweight Champion this WrestleMania, Shawn Michaels will be burying some old guy's career. At their primes, at their bests, with a 20% advantage even, Undertaker wins. No doubt.

People do get excited about 'Taker, but that's because gosh he hardly ever wrestles anymore. And then it comes to WM and everyone is in love with Taker. These tournaments happen at the wrong time of year for Shawn, because all the 15-0 taker marks are out. (Not calling you one, I mean in general).

No way does Undertaker win that. And I'm a fan of Undertaker. But Shawn in his prime was so much better.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I think this one is pretty cut and dry. I'm sure the Big Show match would take it out of Taker. But he is a dead man, and dead men don't gas.

HBK was in a match with Benoit. hat would have gone at least 30 minutes. Possibly more. And he would have only just defeated him. With a roll-up probably, because that's all he had left. As Taker doesn't move quickly you would imagine he wouldn't gas. He'll be tired for sure, and a little banged up. But nowhere as bad as Shawn.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Yet Sam says some smartass "opinionated" comment. Big surprise.

You have yours. I have mine. Get over it.

I actually apologise for being so rude. I was very tired and that made me cranky. I didn't need Big Wes disagreeing with me.

Also, What 20% advantage are you talking about? Dumb question prolly but oh well.

In the polls. Michaels won with 62.79% and Taker won with 86.42%. It's actually almost a 25% advantage now that I confirm it.

Who has put on more classics? HBK

Probably, but not by far.

Who has put on better feuds? HBK

True, The Undertaker usually has the exact same feud but with different prey. I think he's a terrible feud participant, to be quite honest.

Who can put on a show better than anyone on the entire roster? HBK

Who is more entertaining? HBK

Well, I disagree with the last part. However, this isn't a "Who is the most entertaining?" tournament, this is a "Who would win?" tournament.

Yeah, Excuse me for forgetting a cocky, arrogant, smartass entertaining wrestler is bland.

Wow, Undertaker's gimmick is just so fun to watch. Honestly..

It's gotten old, but calling him as a wrestler bland, it's simply not true. And again, this isn't about who's bland and who isn't. We got sidetracked a little.

Questionable? Now at this day in time. Maybe. But when you look at time in their prime and overall careers. HBK hands down.

Well, the quote you took from me concerned this day in time. If you're talking about speed and agility, of course Michaels takes it. He should take it, he's the much smaller man. He'd be completely fucked if he didn't have it. However, at his best Undertaker is no slowpoke, combine that with his striking prowess, his power and the fact that Michaels is terrified of him.

I think a few people are putting a little too much stock in the differences in the voting. Just because Taker killed Big Show in the polls, doesn't mean it wasn't a tough match. It just means that most people felt that, AFTER a hard fought match, Taker would be the one to prevail. He most certainly did break one HELL of a sweat against Big Show.

C'mon IC, the difference in the polls is pretty much 25%. I thought the polls were a representation of how hard fought a match was. Right, xfear?

The Undertaker takes this one easily.

And talk about a kick to the balls - to say Benoit wouldn't give Michaels the fight of his life is ridiculous. Hell, Benoit did it to HBK and HHH on the biggest stage in pro wrestling and came out World Champ. I know why people voted Michaels, but shit, Benoit would have forced HBK to escape or reverse the Crossface at least twice in a match.

Well, it has been said, I also don't think a 60% is as big a win as people will make out.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'll try and break down your factors. Your second one at least.

Face it kids, both Taker and HBK are coming into this match a little banged up. 7 of the 8 men in the elite 8 deserved to be here (sans RVD) and the four men who deserved to advance, did. But for three of them, it had to be a dogfight.

Less so for Undertaker.

Myth #2 - Taker has the edge because of his submission holds.

Most of the submission holds Taker puts on opponents is because those men allow themselves to get into prone positions following power moves. Michaels is smarter, can slip away, and doesn't use many power moves. If Michaels loses, it will be via pinfall thanks to a tombstone or last ride. Also, Shawn uses submission just fine as well.

I actually agree there, I don't even think the deadman would bother putting the submission on Michaels. However, he did just nearly defeat an olympic gold medalist and one of the best technical wrestlers ever with a Triangle Choke, HBK is not invulnerable.

The crowd will be even. Split right down the middle.

Agreed. For HBK's flamboyancy, Undertaker's theatrics fight it right back.

In his prime, Taker had Paul Bearer. Michaels may or may not have had either Jose Lothario or dX. So, negation.

I'll go along with that.

I mean, this is a total "pick'em" situation. No bookie in vegas would have a line. And I pick...I don't know yet.

I would have just gone for Undertaker anyway, but the 24/25% advantage, it made my mind up for sure. I was hoping that Angle would get HBK to tap out in the finals, for now I'll use my no. 2 (drawn with Vader). I'll be damned if the deadman doesn't deserve it.

fangirlism?

I'm not going to accuse you of fangirlism

Or where you asking what it was?

Undertaker is bigger than Shawn in what? Better matches? More entertaining? More energy? More livliness? Because if you say yes to any of them you watch a different show to me.

1) In size.
2) Equal name value.
3) Not as much energy, but he's much more conservative than HBK. He's always wasted at the end of his matches. Why? Because he dances around too much. 'Taker doesn't even waste energy walking to the ring, not to say he's slow. When he wants to, he'll dive over that tope rope and take Michaels' head off.
4) Entertainment value. Taker isn't as consistently entertaining as HBK, but when he brings his A game you know you're watching something special.

And are you saying shawn hasn't improved? Honestly? That claim is laughable.

You're saying the latest HBK is the best ever version? I thought you liked HBK?

Undertaker at the moment, isn't the best person to watch to put it nicely. Shawn on the other hand is still better than most of the roster.

I disgree, but it doesn't matter. This is in their primes. Quite frankly, I feel like arguing recent Taker, the one who's stolen WrestleManias alongside Shawn Michaels and had one of my favourite matches ever with Kurt Angle at NWO 2006 is a Taker in his prime, or in one of his primes. If not, a Taker out of his prime, capturing world heavyweight titles and such, it's pretty impressive, no?

People do get excited about 'Taker, but that's because gosh he hardly ever wrestles anymore.

You're kidding?

And then it comes to WM and everyone is in love with Taker. These tournaments happen at the wrong time of year for Shawn, because all the 15-0 taker marks are out. (Not calling you one, I mean in general).

No, that gives Taker no advantage. Taker has the streak, but WrestleMania is where Michaels puts on his best matches. They're normally very overrated, like his one with Jericho and his one with McMahon, but they're still great nonetheless.

No way does Undertaker win that. And I'm a fan of Undertaker. But Shawn in his prime was so much better.

I can't think of a time when Shawn was much better than Taker. Or better, for that matter. Would it negate the 25% advantage if he was? He'd have to be a fuck load better.

I think this one is pretty cut and dry. I'm sure the Big Show match would take it out of Taker. But he is a dead man, and dead men don't gas.

HBK was in a match with Benoit. hat would have gone at least 30 minutes. Possibly more. And he would have only just defeated him. With a roll-up probably, because that's all he had left. As Taker doesn't move quickly you would imagine he wouldn't gas. He'll be tired for sure, and a little banged up. But nowhere as bad as Shawn.

What he said.

 

[X]

Well, I disagree with the last part. However, this isn't a "Who is the most entertaining?" tournament, this is a "Who would win?" tournament.

You are correct sir. And when has the Undertaker ever beaten Shawn Michaels? Never.

Seriously, go back and look at every single one on one encounter that Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker have had, and HBK has one every one of them.
So what if The Undertaker has a "20% advantage"? HBK has wrestled for an hour at a time easily before. He's got a lot more stamina in my book then the Undertaker has.

Now granted that HBK has usually won those matches with the help of outside interference....but why wouldn't that be the same result here? Is it too implausable to see an ally of HBK come to his aid in this match?

HBK has always been a bigger star then the Undertaker, despite what someone said earlier in this thread. And I can't see the Undertaker ever going over HBK to be honest with you. Just like I'd take Randy Savage over Vader any day. Because some of the people here are treating this tournament as though it were a shoot MMA tournament or something.

However, at his best Undertaker is no slowpoke, combine that with his striking prowess, his power and the fact that Michaels is terrified of him.

See, I would disagree. While its a long running joke that HBK is terrified of the Undertaker, he's still won every match they've ever had together.

While I totally agree that Taker would take this in say, some sort of shoot contest, I can't go against HBK here. History just doesn't go with it.

C'mon IC, the difference in the polls is pretty much 25%. I thought the polls were a representation of how hard fought a match was. Right, xfear?

Definately. I think Taker would've taken down Big Show quickly and rather easily, while HBK was in a much harder match up. But I still like HBK's stamina in this one, because the man can flat out go for an hour at a time, especially in his prime.

While this match seems too close to call, I have to go with HBK here. While it's not the popular opinion this year, I still firmly believe that there was, is, or ever will be a better professional wrestler then Shawn Michaels. Just my opinion.

 

[Uncle Sam]

You are correct sir. And when has the Undertaker ever beaten Shawn Michaels? Never.

Seriously, go back and look at every single one on one encounter that Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker have had, and HBK has one every one of them.
So what if The Undertaker has a "20% advantage"? HBK has wrestled for an hour at a time easily before. He's got a lot more stamina in my book then the Undertaker has.

Now granted that HBK has usually won those matches with the help of outside interference....but why wouldn't that be the same result here? Is it too implausable to see an ally of HBK come to his aid in this match?

Well, there's a first time for everything. I'm confused as to how to measure stamina. Pretty much every Undertaker match I've seen he's calm and collected at the end. Pretty much every Shawn Michaels match I've seen he's completely fucking wasted at the end. That's win or lose, for both men.

As for your outside interference argument, I believe it's been used before. Not that it's less valid. If outside interference is "allowed" in this tournament, which I believe it is, you're correct in saying Michaels will probably have someone helping him out. My history isn't perfect, however, didn't Undertaker not have Paul Bearer in his corner during his matches with HBK? Like IC said, in his prime, Paul Bearer would be in Taker's corner, and he's a tad sneakier than most.

HBK has always been a bigger star then the Undertaker, despite what someone said earlier in this thread. And I can't see the Undertaker ever going over HBK to be honest with you. Just like I'd take Randy Savage over Vader any day. Because some of the people here are treating this tournament as though it were a shoot MMA tournament or something.

Royal Rumble 2007. I just remembered. OK, HBK had been worn down earlier in the night, just like now. Taker never going over HBK? He did it in what was questionably the biggest match of the year.

See, I would disagree. While its a long running joke that HBK is terrified of the Undertaker, he's still won every match they've ever had together.

Are you just going to use the "he's won every match" argument for all my points? It makes me sad.

While I totally agree that Taker would take this in say, some sort of shoot contest, I can't go against HBK here. History just doesn't go with it.

Well, it is a fantasy tournament. I can't imagine RVD going over Rock in a ladder match, same for Trips over Hogan. History just doesn't apply to this thing. Benoit wouldn't go over Sting in WCW, Bigelow and Michaels wouldn't go through a table at the same time. If we're basing this on history, Hogan would probably win this thing.

While this match seems too close to call, I have to go with HBK here. While it's not the popular opinion this year, I still firmly believe that there was, is, or ever will be a better professional wrestler then Shawn Michaels. Just my opinion.

Fair enough. I'd go for Stone Cold Steve Austin, personally.

EDIT: Checked on OWW.com, and technically, Undertaker has beaten Michaels twice, once by DQ and once in RR 2007, once there was a no contest, and Shawn Michaels won after getting the crap kicked out of him in HIAC1, and again after having his career temporarily ended in a casket match. As far as I can tell.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

But I still like HBK's stamina in this one, because the man can flat out go for an hour at a time, especially in his prime.

When was HBK's prime? 1996? I remember him having a match in that year that was an hour. It was kinda boring. Not much really happened. You could watch it on fast forward and not really miss a thing. It wasn't a fast paced match. It was pretty slow. So yeah he can go for an hour. But at that pace, most wrestlers could.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Or where you asking what it was?

Yeah I was just asking what you meant, never seen anyone use the term before.

1) In size.

True, but size means very little in pro wrestling. The Great Khali anyone?

2) Equal name value.

Also true.

3) Not as much energy, but he's much more conservative than HBK. He's always wasted at the end of his matches. Why? Because he dances around too much. 'Taker doesn't even waste energy walking to the ring, not to say he's slow. When he wants to, he'll dive over that tope rope and take Michaels' head off.

Taker isn't slow, as you say, but he doesn't generally have the energy which Shawn could have even after the match with Benoit.

4) Entertainment value. Taker isn't as consistently entertaining as HBK, but when he brings his A game you know you're watching something special.

You could say exactly the same about HBK, and most people do.

You're saying the latest HBK is the best ever version? I thought you liked HBK?

I aren't saying now is the best HBK. But you said he hadn't improved with age, which in turn, suggest he didn't imporve, and has stayed the same since he started wrestling. You see where I'm coming from now?

I disgree, but it doesn't matter. This is in their primes. Quite frankly, I feel like arguing recent Taker, the one who's stolen WrestleManias alongside Shawn Michaels and had one of my favourite matches ever with Kurt Angle at NWO 2006 is a Taker in his prime, or in one of his primes. If not, a Taker out of his prime, capturing world heavyweight titles and such, it's pretty impressive, no?

Taker in his prime now? Nah I definately disagree with that, just watching matches from 10 years back proves that to me. And yeah it's impressive, hey I'm an Undertaker fan, think he's great so I aren't going to argue against that. But I still think Shawn is better.

No, that gives Taker no advantage. Taker has the streak, but WrestleMania is where Michaels puts on his best matches. They're normally very overrated, like his one with Jericho and his one with McMahon, but they're still great nonetheless.

It does give Undertaeker an advantage; around Wrestlemania, everyone is talking about how great Undertaker is because his streak is back in the question, back in the public eye. Everyone's talking about it.
The problem with Undertakers streak is, it doesn't matter what the quality of the matches are like, as long as he wins, it's fine. Whereas with Shawn the quality of the matches are always great. And this isn't an insult to Undertaker, he has had a lot of great matches, but I'm sure you see where I'm coming fro, in terms of the result meaning more than the match.
Oh, and the McMahon match is overrated I agree. But the Jericho match was great.

I can't think of a time when Shawn was much better than Taker. Or better, for that matter. Would it negate the 25% advantage if he was? He'd have to be a fuck load better.

Gosh this advantage, what does it have to do with anything? Nothing. Everyone needs to stop going on abotu it, because all it is is a number at the end of the day, the legends of the 2 speak for themselves. And Shawn isn't worlds better than Undertaker, because no one ever could be, but looking at different factors, such as what have already been mentioned, he is better.

 

[HBK-aholic]

yea there is pretty much NO WAY the Undertaker loses, to an already emaciated shawn Michaels.

Okay I just picked this quote out of all the others to explain something to everyone.
The fact people are using his match with Benoit as a reason he can't win this. Am I the only one that knows about Shawn's iron man matches? He's gona an hour at a time, with 2 of the biggest names of the time. Bret Hart is a hell of an athlete, John Cena; well okay my opinion on him isn't the highest but he was the WWE champion. And he and Shawn had one of the best matches of the year. He went for an hour, and then won. The match was great. So to use a match with Benoit as a reason HBK can't win isn't well thought out, as Shawn has had longer matches and come out with a win.

Oh, and Undertaker had to take out a 500 pound giant. Why is everone acting like it would have been a walk in the parlk for him? I aren't saying Show is better than Benoit, because hs isn't. But that match, and the Big Show are being underestimated way too much here.

 

[justinsayne]

Okay I just picked this quote out of all the others to explain something to everyone.
The fact people are using his match with Benoit as a reason he can't win this. Am I the only one that knows about Shawn's iron man matches? He's gona an hour at a time, with 2 of the biggest names of the time. Bret Hart is a hell of an athlete, John Cena; well okay my opinion on him isn't the highest but he was the WWE champion. And he and Shawn had one of the best matches of the year. He went for an hour, and then won. The match was great. So to use a match with Benoit as a reason HBK can't win isn't well thought out, as Shawn has had longer matches and come out with a win.

Oh, and Undertaker had to take out a 500 pound giant. Why is everone acting like it would have been a walk in the parlk for him? I aren't saying Show is better than Benoit, because hs isn't. But that match, and the Big Show are being underestimated way too much here.

Yes he went an hour, but he did it with two guys that were closer to his size, Taker is bigger, and is as good if not better than both those guys, plus chances are that HBK's match with Benoit lasted quite awhile, both HBK & Benoit are gonna fight to very end, and I'm sure that Benoit would have gotten several good submission holds on HBK, tear his body apart, HBK has come out of that match as the winner, but also came out bruised, battered, and broken, and now has to go into what will most likely be another long grueling match with Taker, not even HBK can overcome those odds on his best day, Taker isn't gonna be nearly as beating and broken down as HBK, he probably beat Show in about 20 mins. via submission, and has had more time to rest and recover, HBKs match with Benoit easily lasted at least and hour, sorry but the Deadmans taking this one and moving on to the finals

 

[Slim Pickns]

^^When you say that the percentages don't matter it disregards the rules of the tournament. The way its set up is that these matches take place in the same night. If you are going to ignore the fact that Undertaker has a near 25% advantage than you are ignoring the rules.

That said, Undertaker wins this. Sam and Jake pretty much said all there is to say. Undertaker in his prime never lost. I understand its hard to pin point a prime for Taker but which ever one you pick, with a 25% advantage, he beats Michaels clearly. I see the HBK voters are pointing out that Big Show was a tough opponent. True, but from the look of the voting, most agree Benoit was far tougher.

EDIT- Response to HBK-aholic not Justin

 

[Uncle Sam]

Yeah I was just asking what you meant, never seen anyone use the term before.

Like a fanboy but female.

True, but size means very little in pro wrestling. The Great Khali anyone?

IC25 just died a little inside. I'd also like to point out The Great Khali is a former world champion. Size in this case means Undertaker has the strength and leverage advantage.

Taker isn't slow, as you say, but he doesn't generally have the energy which Shawn could have even after the match with Benoit.

Shawn is energetic, yes, but have you seen how wasted he gets? Kayfabe or not kayfabe, the guy ends up as an absolute wreck at the end of pretty much every match he's in. The Undertaker is otherworldly, the energy he does waste doesn't mean a damn thing, and he doesn't waste much energy.

You could say exactly the same about HBK, and most people do.

Fair enough.

I aren't saying now is the best HBK. But you said he hadn't improved with age, which in turn, suggest he didn't imporve, and has stayed the same since he started wrestling. You see where I'm coming from now?

I do. I wasn't implying Michaels was at his best as a four year old.

Taker in his prime now? Nah I definately disagree with that, just watching matches from 10 years back proves that to me. And yeah it's impressive, hey I'm an Undertaker fan, think he's great so I aren't going to argue against that. But I still think Shawn is better.

I've already stated my reasoning for that. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it. The guy has had several primes, or I think. In my mind, Michaels has had but one. It's not a disadvantage by any means.

It does give Undertaeker an advantage; around Wrestlemania, everyone is talking about how great Undertaker is because his streak is back in the question, back in the public eye. Everyone's talking about it.
The problem with Undertakers streak is, it doesn't matter what the quality of the matches are like, as long as he wins, it's fine. Whereas with Shawn the quality of the matches are always great. And this isn't an insult to Undertaker, he has had a lot of great matches, but I'm sure you see where I'm coming fro, in terms of the result meaning more than the match.
Oh, and the McMahon match is overrated I agree. But the Jericho match was great.

Meh. The IWC doesn't seem to think so. Undertaker maintaining his streak means fuck all to me, he's had some fucking atrocious matches at 'Mania. His Orton and Batista matches were fantastic, however. The fans seemed to think so, and these are people who don't think Orton or Batista are any good. Again, I'm getting sidetracked.

Gosh this advantage, what does it have to do with anything? Nothing. Everyone needs to stop going on abotu it, because all it is is a number at the end of the day, the legends of the 2 speak for themselves. And Shawn isn't worlds better than Undertaker, because no one ever could be, but looking at different factors, such as what have already been mentioned, he is better.

It means that Undertaker had a much easier match. A much easier match by 25%, meaning he's much fresher than Michaels is, however you see it. Unless you see it from the "No, no advantage, no, no, no!" POV, which people seem to be seeing it from. It's got everything to do with it because in the eyes of many, it removes their doubt for voting for 'Taker. As it should.

EDIT:

This match is conducted under "King of the Ring" style format, meaning, this is the second match of the evening for both wrestlers.

 

[HBK-aholic]

^^When you say that the percentages don't matter it disregards the rules of the tournament. The way its set up is that these matches take place in the same night. If you are going to ignore the fact that Undertaker has a near 25% advantage than you are ignoring the rules.

Not disregarding the rules, but I think the Undertaker match is being disregarded and underestinamted. People seem to think Show won't have got a few good holds on Taker, and tired him out. He's 500 pounds, of course it's going to take a lot to get him down. And Show got that far; obviously showing he's a good wrestler.

And the reason I aren't holding much by the percentages, is because both those matches should have been a lot closer. Neither Shawn or Undertaker should have won by as much as they did.

 

[HBK-aholic]

IC25 just died a little inside. I'd also like to point out The Great Khali is a former world champion. Size in this case means Undertaker has the strength and leverage advantage.

Has Shawn ever lost to The Undertaker? I don't think he has. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't be 100% sure) And don't give me the rubbish about Khalis title reign, everyone agrees that was worthless, and he's only there now because McMahon seems to love big guys.

Shawn is energetic, yes, but have you seen how wasted he gets? Kayfabe or not kayfabe, the guy ends up as an absolute wreck at the end of pretty much every match he's in. The Undertaker is otherworldly, the energy he does waste doesn't mean a damn thing, and he doesn't waste much energy.

The thing with Shawn is, no matter how much energy he uses in one match, he'd still have enough to carry on. I mean, this is the guy that has gone for an hour with 2 'greats' and who has won the Royal Rumble after entering at number 1.

I do. I wasn't implying Michaels was at his best as a four year old.

Ah, I know. But I thought you meant, from the beginning of his career in wrestling, he hadn't improed, which is why I said it was laughable.

I've already stated my reasoning for that. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it. The guy has had several primes, or I think. In my mind, Michaels has had but one. It's not a disadvantage by any means.

Regardless, with both guys, it's hard to differentiate between there primes, and now, because they're just so good.

Meh. The IWC doesn't seem to think so. Undertaker maintaining his streak means fuck all to me, he's had some fucking atrocious matches at 'Mania. His Orton and Batista matches were fantastic, however. The fans seemed to think so, and these are people who don't think Orton or Batista are any good. Again, I'm getting sidetracked.

It means that Undertaker had a much easier match. A much easier match by 25%, meaning he's much fresher than Michaels is, however you see it. Unless you see it from the "No, no advantage, no, no, no!" POV, which people seem to be seeing it from. It's got everything to do with it because in the eyes of many, it removes their doubt for voting for 'Taker. As it should.

Well Id on't see the 25% thing as an advantage, because I don't agree with the 25% in the first place; something I explained why in a post above, and don't want to get infracted for repeating here.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Not disregarding the rules, but I think the Undertaker match is being disregarded and underestinamted. People seem to think Show won't have got a few good holds on Taker, and tired him out. He's 500 pounds, of course it's going to take a lot to get him down. And Show got that far; obviously showing he's a good wrestler.

And the reason I aren't holding much by the percentages, is because both those matches should have been a lot closer. Neither Shawn or Undertaker should have won by as much as they did.

Chris Benoit is a much more dangerous force than The Big Show is. The Big Show's big. That's it. Bigger opponents mean nothing to the deadman. Benoit would have given HBK a much bigger run for his money, probably inflicting damage on at least one limb along the way. The Rabid Wolverine's more precise and attacks with much more focused aggression (toothless aggression, anyone?) than Show.

Besides, in this tournament, the percentages are gospel. Shouldn't, wouldn't, whatever. That's what happened.

"25% advantage" - Sam, 2:17