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

[Uncle Sam]

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.

Yes, The Undertaker has beaten Shawn Michaels twice. Once in a little match called the Royal Rumble. Once in some lame Raw match by DQ. The Khali thing was a joke, by the way.

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.

You have a point. However, is that little bit of gas he always keeps reserved enough to take on a man like The Undertaker - a guy with a steel will that always sits up, with one exception in history? I don't think it is, especially considering Michaels has already had Benoit tugging on him from all angles like some bratty child.

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.

Indeed.

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

True story, but I still stand by The Undertaker in that he's improved more with age. That's irrelevant, anyway.

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.

Infracted? Say wha--? Anyway, I've already explained my feelings in my post above this.

EDIT: Where the hell is Colamania?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Sam is exactly right. Whether you AGREE that something SHOULDNT have happened, THAT IS WHATA HAPPENED. So therefore, you cant just simply make it dissappear, becuase u dont agree with it. It happened, and HBK is at a huge distinct disadvantage. HBK has stamina becuas eof the iron man match, and becuase of winning RR from number 1???

1. That was the shortest rumble in history. FACT. And he also just went through a match with another guy who won it from number one. So therefore that match wouldve went an absurd amount of time.

2. The Iron man match was 45 minutes of rest holds. it wasnt that impressive. Watch it. then get over it.

Of course coupled with the facts that Undertaker in his prime was almost NEVER beaten, and to this day very few would pick against him. The Big Show match WAS short, no matter what people want to weakley try to fabricate some ways thst it wasnt. that match undeniabley has 10 minute squash written all over it.

 

[X]

Yes, The Undertaker has beaten Shawn Michaels twice. Once in a little match called the Royal Rumble. Once in some lame Raw match by DQ. The Khali thing was a joke, by the way.

For christ sake, are you guys SERIOUSLY counting the 2007 Royal Rumble as a victory for The Undertaker over HBK? Thats a 30 man battle royal; not a one-on-one contest which is what this match is. How are you going to count battle royal's as a victory for one man over another? Thats ridiculious. If thats the case then I guess Jim Duggan should be remembered for his "victories" over guys such as Bret Hart and Harley Race in the 88 Rumble, and hell Big John Studd should be remembered for his "victories" over Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage and HBK in the 89 Rumble. Same scenario's, but I hardly think many people will agree that Jim Duggan beat Bret Hart in his career.

Had to add that into the discussion.

 

[Uncle Sam]

For christ sake, are you guys SERIOUSLY counting the 2007 Royal Rumble as a victory for The Undertaker over HBK? Thats a 30 man battle royal; not a one-on-one contest which is what this match is. How are you going to count battle royal's as a victory for one man over another? Thats ridiculious. If thats the case then I guess Jim Duggan should be remembered for his "victories" over guys such as Bret Hart and Harley Race in the 88 Rumble, and hell Big John Studd should be remembered for his "victories" over Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage and HBK in the 89 Rumble. Same scenario's, but I hardly think many people will agree that Jim Duggan beat Harley Race in his career.

Had to add that into the discussion.

It should be considered a victory for the simple fact taht it was the final two. The final two is always pretty much a match on it's own, albeit usually shorter. It's always a tense showdown, nonetheless, and one of the standout moments of that year. It was a fight to the finish and if you'd taken off the rest of the Rumble you'd have got just as much satisfaction from the two fighting it out. It was maybe not as lengthy as a regular match but it showed that Undertaker could come out on top over HBK after a long match beforehand, something I think is incredibly relevant to this scenario, but does not fit perfectly due to the stipulation. I was also under the impression that winning the Rumble meant, in JR's words I believe, that the winner was "victorious over 29 other men"?

 

[X]

It should be considered a victory for the simple fact taht it was the final two. The final two is always pretty much a match on it's own, albeit usually shorter. It's always a tense showdown, nonetheless, and one of the standout moments of that year. It was a fight to the finish and if you'd taken off the rest of the Rumble you'd have got just as much satisfaction from the two fighting it out. It was maybe not as lengthy as a regular match but it showed that Undertaker could come out on top over HBK after a long match beforehand, something I think is incredibly relevant to this scenario, but does not fit perfectly due to the stipulation. I was also under the impression that winning the Rumble meant, in JR's words I believe, that the winner was "victorious over 29 other men"?

So then your argument is that because Undertaker threw HBK over the top rope, that he can pin him, when he never has been able to before? I don't understand that logic.

The Royal Rumble match is COMPLETELY different from a one-on-one encounter, they're not even similiar. Thats like saying because (hypothetic) Val Venis beat Bret Hart in a scaffold match, that he could pin him. Doesn't make any sense.

You don't win this match by throwing the other over the top rope. You do it by pinfall; something Undertaker has never, nor probably will ever in his career be able to do.

Besides, the way I vote on these things, I vote for the best wrestler. And HBK is clearly the superior wrestler (atleast in my opinion).

 

[Dan1708]

Okay, it seems that everyone posting here is going out on a tangent.
Lets talk about the match, and simply how they contrast.

Now when i think about this match i think to myself, apart from speed (which isn't huge) what other advantage does HBK have on Taker?
Please someone answer me this question.

The fact is, if u say Taker was in his Prime when he beat Hogan in his PRIME for the WWE title, then im sorry HBK marks, HBK has NO CHANCE against the Deadman.

The amount of damage which is required to put the undertaker down, is something HBK does not have.

Now for all thos who say HBK has beaten taker... and all that
Again can anyone please tell me one time where HBK has beaten The undertaker CLEANLY ????

Now going with this, if HBK can't pin Taker clealy how can he win?

Submission? are u blind enough to even THINK that Taker would actually TAP OUT.

Im sorry, but a wrestler like HBK cannot stand up to a wrestler like taker.

Do i even need to mention the deadman persona. Kick after kick the undertaker would just sit up.

The only type of wrestlers who are the most effective on Taker is the Moronic steriod clan, Batista, Goldberg, Brock lesner etc who i all hate btw, not saying Taker can't beat them but its those type that have the best chance.

The way (fake) wrestling goes is like Rock, paper, scicors some guys are good against others, but then sometimes u get the odd guy who isnt as beatable as everyone else. like Taker being the Anti-giant for example, is ruins the whole circle.

This is an example

Angle > lesnar
Lesnar > Taker
Taker > Angle

or

HBK > Y2J
Chris benoit > HBK
Y2J > Chris benoit


That is how Pro (fake wrestling is like)

 

[Uncle Sam]

So then your argument is that because Undertaker threw HBK over the top rope, that he can pin him, when he never has been able to before? I don't understand that logic.

Michaels has pinned Undertaker once before, and he needed Kane to help out... after he'd been completely destroyed, that is.

The Royal Rumble match is COMPLETELY different from a one-on-one encounter, they're not even similiar. Thats like saying because (hypothetic) Val Venis beat Bret Hart in a scaffold match, that he could pin him. Doesn't make any sense.

Well, I thought we were arguing over whether Undertaker had beaten Michaels. Like I explained, the stipulation had few parallels with standard pinfall rules.

You don't win this match by throwing the other over the top rope. You do it by pinfall; something Undertaker has never, nor probably will ever in his career be able to do.

Like I said, Michaels got lucky as hell with Kane turning up.

Besides, the way I vote on these things, I vote for the best wrestler. And HBK is clearly the superior wrestler (atleast in my opinion).

That's fine, considering there's no stipulation involved. You do, however, seem to be completely ignoring Undertaker's 25% advantage. Numbers don't lie, although 4 once told me he loved me...

 

[HBK-aholic]

Yes, The Undertaker has beaten Shawn Michaels twice. Once in a little match called the Royal Rumble. Once in some lame Raw match by DQ. The Khali thing was a joke, by the way.

You just made this work so much better for HBK. No way can you class the RR as someone beating someone else. It just doesn't work like that, because if it did, it could go on forever, and some stupid amount of people can say they beat greats.
And the only way he can beat Shawn is by submission?

You have a point. However, is that little bit of gas he always keeps reserved enough to take on a man like The Undertaker - a guy with a steel will that always sits up, with one exception in history? I don't think it is, especially considering Michaels has already had Benoit tugging on him from all angles like some bratty child.

At the end of the day, yes I do think Shawn would have it in him to do that, for reasons I've explained before. He has always been able to bring his A game to big matches.

EDIT: Where the hell is Colamania?

Lmao why?

 

[emperor.indian]

both these wreslers personify the words LEGEND and are future hall of famers
so i think this matchup will be one for the ages.
its difficult to decide whom to give the nod but if i have to i will go with the UNDERTAKER

reasons
1. shawn has had a tiring 35-40 minutes match with BENOIT. TAKER has had it relatively easy with the big show

2. CAN TAKER BE HIT WITH A SWEET CHIN MUSIC AFTER TUNING UP THE BAND- i guess not. taker will SIT up after the elbow drop and not be groggy...he will see it coming and block it

3. if hbk manages to hit sweet chin music out of nowhere can taker kick out- possibly NO -but he JUST BARELY MIGHT ESCAPE BY PUTTING HIS FOOT ON THE ROPE (obviously helped along by his height and tremendous ring awareness)

4. can shawn KICK OUT or grab ropes after a choke slam, TOMBSTONE PILEDRIVER or a LAST RIDE- no way

5. can taker make shawn submit- MAYBE he can if he gets the triangle choke locked in on a tired shawn (with limb damage inflicted by benoit earlier in the night) in the midle of the ring, though shawn is going to take a fair amount of time to tap far surpassing the time anyone has been locked ever in the traingle choke

6. can shawn make taker tap out- NO WAY POSSIBLY (atleast in my assumption)

so to solve the dilemma i am giving this match to the taker
WHY- because i see him having more number, versatility and types of FINISHERS. it more plausible to see TAKER making a pinfall over HBK or to make him tap than the other way round


I EDIT MY EARLIER POST ABOUT BIG SHOWS POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE BECAUSE I SEE IT IS SPOILING PEOPLES MOOD ALREADY. MR. SAM HAS GOT ANGRY ON ME AND I DONT WONT TO BE GUILTY OF SPOILING THIS PHENOMENOL MATCHUP


FOR THE WIN

 

[Uncle Sam]

You just made this work so much better for HBK. No way can you class the RR as someone beating someone else. It just doesn't work like that, because if it did, it could go on forever, and some stupid amount of people can say they beat greats.
And the only way he can beat Shawn is by submission?

I think it's a hell of a lot more valid than HBK's career having to be saved in a match, and HBK's career being ended (for four years) in a match as examples.

At the end of the day, yes I do think Shawn would have it in him to do that, for reasons I've explained before. He has always been able to bring his A game to big matches.

I hate myself for doing this but... hello? 15-0? I think we know Taker has what it takes to win big matches. I'll use HBK/Angle, HBK/HHH/Benoit and HBK/Cena as examples. Need I say more?

Lmao why?

I honestly do not know.

EDIT: What the fuck is it with these interference arguments? I fucking hate them, they just completely contradict the point of the tournament. How's this? Chris Benoit gets pissed off because HBK wouldn't tap out, comes out with a shotgun and kills him. How's that?

EDIT (2): How long is it before someone suggests the scenario that Undertaker is actually in love with Michaels and so dives in the way of the lethal shot?

 

[X]

That's fine, considering there's no stipulation involved. You do, however, seem to be completely ignoring Undertaker's 25% advantage. Numbers don't lie, although 4 once told me he loved me...

And I already told you why that number doesn't matter to me; because HBK has ridiculious stamina, and is able to flat out go for 40-60 minutes at the drop of a hat, where as the longest matches I can remember 'Taker being involved in were maybe 25 minutes, 30 at max.

HBK is a better wrestler then The Undertaker; and that's why he'll win this. Because he's better; he's had more great matches, more great feuds, more great promos, etc etc etc. I can't think of any aspect of pro wrestling where the Undertaker has excelled past HBK.

 

[Dan1708]

People keep saying HBK is a better wrestler than Taker but do not explain WHY.
We are talking about the actual WRESTLING match anything other than that is irrelivent.

 

[Uncle Sam]

And I already told you why that number doesn't matter to me; because HBK has ridiculious stamina, and is able to flat out go for 40-60 minutes at the drop of a hat, where as the longest matches I can remember 'Taker being involved in were maybe 25 minutes, 30 at max.

If this match goes that long. OK, so if Undertaker's gone that long, and with the amount of wins he has, particularly against top tier stars, surely he wouldn't need that long to finish Michaels off then? Well, if you were to say Taker wins.

I take it you discount the 25% because Michaels has a, say, 35% advantage already? Y'know, just for argument's sake. Well, may I employ the "Michaels is always wasted by the time he's gone long" argument? No? Well, shucks.

HBK is a better wrestler then The Undertaker; and that's why he'll win this. Because he's better; he's had more great matches, more great feuds, more great promos, etc etc etc. I can't think of any aspect of pro wrestling where the Undertaker has excelled past HBK.

He can tell Undertaker that as he gets tossed flat on his ass for the umpteenth time. It's not a shoot match, but the rules that apply are similar to how it would be it was.

 

[X]

If this match goes that long. OK, so if Undertaker's gone that long, and with the amount of wins he has, particularly against top tier stars, surely he wouldn't need that long to finish Michaels off then? Well, if you were to say Taker wins. [

I take it you discount the 25% because Michaels has a, say, 35% advantage already? Y'know, just for argument's sake. Well, may I employ the "Michaels is always wasted by the time he's gone long" argument? No? Well, shucks.

I actually was referring to Michael's stamina in regards to the argument that Taker has "25%" advantage on him. I'm not saying the match will go for 40 minutes, I'm just saying that even after a grueling match with Benoit, HBK would still have the stamina needed to defeat the Undertaker.

He can tell Undertaker that as he gets tossed flat on his ass for the umpteenth time. It's not a shoot match, but the rules that apply are similar to how it would be it was.

How do you figure the rules apply so that it's similiar to a shoot match? If that was the case, then Big Show would've mopped the floor with Undertaker, and HBK would've lost already to somebody like Chuck Palumbo. Now does that sound realistic? No.

 

[Dan1708]

Yes, like Mr Sam is saying, lets talk about the reality.
The undertaker would break HBK in half, and what will HBK do?
Attempt his kick which gets countered 90% of the time and when connected100% Taker sits right back up.
like i said in my post before HBK does not have what it take to beat The undertaker CLEANLY, i would even go on to say no one in the entire history of wrestling does, but thats something else.
And although a major part is to do with the Deadman gimmick The undertaker as a person has shown that he is worthy and deserving of such a gimmick.
People will argue and so well that means someone can just pop up and be the Anti-undertaker, but look at at what happened to Kane.
then someone can say, what about other monster taker type charecters like abyss for example, well its here when Takers 15 year+ experience comes in which gives him the advantage, but thats something else.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I actually was referring to Michael's stamina in regards to the argument that Taker has "25%" advantage on him. I'm not saying the match will go for 40 minutes, I'm just saying that even after a grueling match with Benoit, HBK would still have the stamina needed to defeat the Undertaker.

Fair enough. It's a valid argument, although I think it's stretching it a bit.

How do you figure the rules apply so that it's similiar to a shoot match? If that was the case, then Big Show would've mopped the floor with Undertaker, and HBK would've lost already to somebody like Chuck Palumbo. Now does that sound realistic? No.

Well I was thinking of, like, a worked shoot environment. Like, who would win in kayfabe without politics, historical patterns, etc. in the way. I still say The Undertaker beat or was at the very least selected over Michaels in the Rumble.

 

[X]

Yes, like Mr Sam is saying, lets talk about the reality.
The undertaker would break HBK in half, and what will HBK do?
Attempt his kick which gets countered 90% of the time and when connected100% Taker sits right back up.
like i said in my post before HBK does not have what it take to beat The undertaker CLEANLY, i would even go on to say no one in the entire history of wrestling does, but thats something else.
And although a major part is to do with the Deadman gimmick The undertaker as a person has shown that he is worthy and deserving of such a gimmick.

You're making kayfabe into gospel. If that were how things worked, then I'm pretty sure that Ted DiBiase would've already won this tournament by simply buying his opponents off. Or maybe Andre the Giant should've won, considering his undefeated streak. Or wait, maybe the Undertaker wins by using his magic powers to turn the lights on and off? Or no! I think that Papa Shango should've won by using his voodoo powers to subdue his opponents!

The Undertaker is a wrestler. He's not an immortal "deadman" as people tend to think. He's the same damn guy he was when he was Mean Mark Callous in WCW. He's always been a great big man wrestler, but I don't think he's even got half of the wrestling skill that HBK has.

 

[emperor.indian]

And I already told you why that number doesn't matter to me; because HBK has ridiculious stamina, and is able to flat out go for 40-60 minutes at the drop of a hat, where as the longest matches I can remember 'Taker being involved in were maybe 25 minutes, 30 at max.

HBK is a better wrestler then The Undertaker; and that's why he'll win this. Because he's better; he's had more great matches, more great feuds, more great promos, etc etc etc. I can't think of any aspect of pro wrestling where the Undertaker has excelled past HBK.

there is ONE aspect of professional wrestling where the TAKER has excelled past HBK. and that is use of FINISHERS. taker has MORE NUMBER OF FINISHERS which are perhaps MORE DAMAGING and almost equal if not more difficult to kick out than HBKs SWEET CHIN MUSIC.
also TRIANGLE CHOKE (or its modification) is a dangerous SUBMISSION move

 

[Uncle Sam]

You're making kayfabe into gospel. If that were how things worked, then I'm pretty sure that Ted DiBiase would've already won this tournament by simply buying his opponents off. Or maybe Andre the Giant should've won, considering his undefeated streak. Or wait, maybe the Undertaker wins by using his magic powers to turn the lights on and off? Or no! I think that Papa Shango should've won by using his voodoo powers to subdue his opponents!

I thought that was your argument? After all, this isn't a shoot... I'm really not getting it. So, even with the stipulations in play, you ignored them and voted for who you thought was better anyway? So, you're not voting who'd win? I'm confused.

The Undertaker is a wrestler. He's not an immortal "deadman" as people tend to think. He's the same damn guy he was when he was Mean Mark Callous in WCW. He's always been a great big man wrestler, but I don't think he's even got half of the wrestling skill that HBK has.

I thought... but... what?

Edit: I hope that's hyperbole with the wrestling skill thing. We're also talking primes, so not Mean Mark Callous thank you very much.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Yes, like Mr Sam is saying, lets talk about the reality.
The undertaker would break HBK in half, and what will HBK do?
Attempt his kick which gets countered 90% of the time and when connected100% Taker sits right back up.
like i said in my post before HBK does not have what it take to beat The undertaker CLEANLY, i would even go on to say no one in the entire history of wrestling does, but thats something else.
And although a major part is to do with the Deadman gimmick The undertaker as a person has shown that he is worthy and deserving of such a gimmick.
People will argue and so well that means someone can just pop up and be the Anti-undertaker, but look at at what happened to Kane.
then someone can say, what about other monster taker type charecters like abyss for example, well its here when Takers 15 year+ experience comes in which gives him the advantage, but thats something else.

How long have you been watching wrestling? Shawn HAS beaten the Undertaker before. The undertaker has apparently beaten Shawn once, via DQ. So that in itself throws your argument that Shawn cannot beat Undertaker cleanly straight out of the window.

And Shawn also has the same amount of experience Undertaker does. It's not something that would be a factor in this match.

 

[Dan1708]

Still again, you keep saying HBK is better Wrestler than Taker, but can you please explain how and why?

When im talking about Taker and his gimmick, im trying to say that in his matches this plays a significant role, ie keep sitting up.

and unlike those others u mentioned, The undertaker has kept consistency and gmmick in every mtach he has ever been in, theres a big differnece. Taking away Takers gimmick in his matches is just like telling angle to not counter as much, because its almost like second nature both to taker and us the fans.

EDIT : HBK-holic i am not saying HBK never beat taker im saying HBK has never beat taker CLEANLY, there is a huge difference.

 

[X]

there is ONE aspect of professional wrestling where the TAKER has excelled past HBK. and that is use of FINISHERS. taker has MORE NUMBER OF FINISHERS which are perhaps MORE DAMAGING and almost equal if not more difficult to kick out than HBKs SWEET CHIN MUSIC.
also TRIANGLE CHOKE (or its modification) is a dangerous SUBMISSION move

Are you serious? So the Undertaker is better then HBK because he has more finishers? WTF?

Undertaker has the chokeslam, Tombstone, Last Ride, and triangle choke. The chokeslam is a glorified body slam, if you've ever seen Taker use the tombstone you'll see that 9/10 times his opponent's head doesn't even hit the ground (making it nothing more then grabbing a guy and running around with him), the Last Ride is a simple power bomb (granted a more powerful one), and the Triangle Choke isn't even applied correctly, nor does it appear to be slightly painful. In real life you could reverse the Triangle Choke in about 2 seconds.

So because the Undertaker has 4 finishing moves, only one of which would legitly hurt, that means he's better? I'd rather be power bombed, choke slammed, tombstoned, or "triangle choked" any day of the week then have a foot shatter into my jaw in a split second, possibly breaking half of my teeth.

I don't think the finishers play a big role in this at all, but figured I'd argue it with you just for the principal alone.

Still again, you keep saying HBK is better Wrestler than Taker, but can you please explain how and why?

Simple. HBK has had better matches, better feuds, and better promos. He's much more enjoyable to watch wrestle then the Undertaker, who only knows how to wrestle one kind of match.

When im talking about Taker and his gimmick, im trying to say that in his matches this plays a significant role, ie keep sitting up.

So your saying that the Undertaker is impervious to pain and impossible to pin then? Logical that is.

and unlike those others u mentioned, The undertaker has kept consistency and gmmick in every mtach he has ever been in, theres a big differnece. Taking away Takers gimmick in his matches is just like telling angle to not counter as much, because its almost like second nature both to taker and us the fans.

...Ummm...maybe you forgot about Undertaker from 2000-2003. You know, when he completely abandoned the Dead man gimmick? So to say that he's had that gimmick consistenyl in every single match is simply false.

Taker got along fine without his "sitting up" routine. If Taker's "sitting up" makes him win this match, then why isn't Hulk Hogan this far? After all, his "hulk up" routine is virtually the same kind of psychology.

I can see I'll be the one defending HBK here in this thread besides Becca.

 

[Uncle Sam]

How long have you been watching wrestling? Shawn HAS beaten the Undertaker before. The undertaker has apparently beaten Shawn once, via DQ. So that in itself throws your argument that Shawn cannot beat Undertaker cleanly straight out of the window.

Michaels beat Taker in situations where his ass was saved. Except on the second occasion where his ass was in fact not saved. So yea, he got his ass saved once, after having the living shit kicked out of him.

And Shawn also has the same amount of experience Undertaker does. It's not something that would be a factor in this match.

Michaels was out for four years (because of Taker). Fact. Does sitting on your ass count as experience?

 

[emperor.indian]

The Undertaker is a wrestler. He's not an immortal "deadman" as people tend to think. He's the same damn guy he was when he was Mean Mark Callous in WCW. He's always been a great big man wrestler, but I don't think he's even got half of the wrestling skill that HBK has.

he has SURELY got MORE than half the skill HBK got.
though HBK got more skill than taker its not WAY too much.
TAKER got power advantage and is one of the best strikers in the wrestling business. so JUST to base it on skill ONLY wont do justice.

IN A SINGLE MATCH THOUGH ON AN AVERAGE HBK DISPLAYES CONSIDERABLY MORE SKILL THAN THE DEADMAN

THE DEADMANs SKILL HAS BEEN IMPROVING AS HE HAS GOT MORE AND MORE EXPERIENCE.

so your statement holds ground only if SKILL is evaluated prior to HBK having his back injury and his 4 yr absence from wrestling

 

[HBK-aholic]

Still again, you keep saying HBK is better Wrestler than Taker, but can you please explain how and why?

And will you please read the thread, where in my very first post I said why I thought HBK was a better wrestler, and have continued the points throughout.
On the other hand, you've given no valid reasons as to why Undertaker is better, so go on then?

When im talking about Taker and his gimmick, im trying to say that in his matches this plays a significant role, ie keep sitting up.

Everyone has a gimmick which controls there matches in some way. This means nothing in explaining why Undertaker would win.

and unlike those others u mentioned, The undertaker has kept consistency and gmmick in every mtach he has ever been in, theres a big differnece. Taking away Takers gimmick in his matches is just like telling angle to not counter as much, because its almost like second nature both to taker and us the fans.

And how many times has Shawn changed his gimmick really? And are you serious in saying Undertakers gimmick hasn't changed? I'm swerious in asking how long have you watched wrestling?