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

[HBK-aholic]

Now in this case we have The Heartbreak kid HBK! The 1st to participate in a Ladder match and sure probably another match, Won 2 STRAIGHT royal rumbles a consecutive time WWE champ and Then We have the Deadman! 15-0 {Soon to be 16-0} at Wrestlemania.. Consecutive WWE champ,Participated in matches for the 1st time such as casket match,Inferno match,HIAC,buried alive and winner of 07 Rumble AGAINST HBK.

Undertaker all the way!

Before you can use things like this to make everyone believe you are making an informed choice, you need to get facts right regarding certain things. You even mentioned it as a plus for the Undertaker. Hell in a Cell match. Who was Undertakers opponent? Shawn Michaels. Who defeated Undertaker in the first Hell in a cell match? Shawn Michaels. Yes it was with the help of Kane. But you can't use it as a plus for Undertaker and not Shawn Michaels.

Continuing from matches. Would you like to tell me who won the first Elimination Chamber? I'll help you. It was Shawn Michaels. He's also been involved in every chamber he's been eligible for (meaning, without the use of ECW and Smackdown chambers).

Now, I don't think these are necessarily advantages or disadvantages, but you're misinformed with how you brushed off Shawn's skills copared to the Undertakers.

I also think people need to realise Royal Rumble doesn't exactly count as a win/defeat against anyone. Because then we could have a whole load of talentless guys saying they beat the Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Austin etc. A fair thought? I didn't think so.

Oh, and is anything more overrated than The Undertakers 15-0 streak? And I'm saying that as an Undertaker fan.

 

[klunderbunker]

I voted Undertaker, but I think that the numbers here are unfair to HBK. I think that while Michaels has had one of the finest careers ever, Taker is just slightly ahead. I'm not going to bother listing various accomplishments and titles for each because it has been done ad nauseum. As I type this, Taker leads 59-36, which to me is stunning. Michaels and Taker have had several matches with each other, all of which have been classics. Michaels deserves a higher total than he has, and I'm afraid people are forgetting how truly amazing he was before he got hurt. To the few that have yet to vote, think back to pre 1998 about Michaels. It should make you think twice about Taker.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Before you can use things like this to make everyone believe you are making an informed choice, you need to get facts right regarding certain things. You even mentioned it as a plus for the Undertaker. Hell in a Cell match. Who was Undertakers opponent? Shawn Michaels. Who defeated Undertaker in the first Hell in a cell match? Shawn Michaels. Yes it was with the help of Kane. But you can't use it as a plus for Undertaker and not Shawn Michaels.

You really can. Undertaker sat up immediately, and I mean immediately after a sweet chin music. The only reason Shawn won that much was that he was able to come back into semi-consciousness long enough to allow his nerves to spasm and his arm to loll over Taker. I'm being completely serious. If that's a Shawn Michaels victory, I'd like to see what he looks like after a loss. And like I've said, the interference argument is completely bogus, because it can be used in favour of anyone and it's just unfair. Ground Zero hasn't as yet been mentioned either, Michaels got out of that one because too many referees got taken out and the match had to be stopped. I mean, the first one was thrown at Michaels.

Continuing from matches. Would you like to tell me who won the first Elimination Chamber? I'll help you. It was Shawn Michaels. He's also been involved in every chamber he's been eligible for (meaning, without the use of ECW and Smackdown chambers).

Erm, I'm not really getting this train of thought...

Now, I don't think these are necessarily advantages or disadvantages, but you're misinformed with how you brushed off Shawn's skills copared to the Undertakers.

We've seen how Undertaker's skills compare to Michaels. When it finally came down to a fair fight, Michaels lost like he should have several times before. I'm not saying that Michaels isn't impressive, or even that he's less entertaining than Undertaker, I'm saying he just cannot beat him.

I also think people need to realise Royal Rumble doesn't exactly count as a win/defeat against anyone. Because then we could have a whole load of talentless guys saying they beat the Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Austin etc. A fair thought? I didn't think so.

It's still far more valid than the HIAC and the Casket Match (where Michaels was put out of commission). And I thought that the big names normally got thrown out by the big names? Save Maven. We all know the last two is also a different story to the rest of the Rumble, at least it was in 2006.

Oh, and is anything more overrated than The Undertakers 15-0 streak? And I'm saying that as an Undertaker fan.

I don't know. Does this match have anything to do with that pointless streak? It didn't even matter until WrestleMania 21.

 

[HBK-aholic]

You really can. Undertaker sat up immediately, and I mean immediately after a sweet chin music. The only reason Shawn won that much was that he was able to come back into semi-consciousness long enough to allow his nerves to spasm and his arm to loll over Taker. I'm being completely serious. If that's a Shawn Michaels victory, I'd like to see what he looks like after a loss. And like I've said, the interference argument is completely bogus, because it can be used in favour of anyone and it's just unfair. Ground Zero hasn't as yet been mentioned either, Michaels got out of that one because too many referees got taken out and the match had to be stopped. I mean, the first one was thrown at Michaels.

I wasn't using this as a reflection of the match itself, I was merely replying to someone who used being in the first Hiac match as a plus for Undertaker and not HBK. Regardless of how he match turned out, which could be used either way, they were both involved in this first match.

We've seen how Undertaker's skills compare to Michaels. When it finally came down to a fair fight, Michaels lost like he should have several times before. I'm not saying that Michaels isn't impressive, or even that he's less entertaining than Undertaker, I'm saying he just cannot beat him.

When are you basing this 'fair fight' upon though?

It's still far more valid than the HIAC and the Casket Match (where Michaels was put out of commission). And I thought that the big names normally got thrown out by the big names? Save Maven. We all know the last two is also a different story to the rest of the Rumble, at least it was in 2006.

The thing is, it's not. It comes down to so many factors. Who was in first? Who was 'against' more of the tougher competitors? Who eliminated more peope? It could go on forever.

I don't know. Does this match have anything to do with that pointless streak? It didn't even matter until WrestleMania 21.

Once again I know it doesn't have anything to do with this match. You've kind of proved my point, as i was replying to someone who did use the streak as something.

 

[Uncle Sam]

When are you basing this 'fair fight' upon though?

Royal Rumble.

The thing is, it's not. It comes down to so many factors. Who was in first? Who was 'against' more of the tougher competitors? Who eliminated more peope? It could go on forever.

If you look at the factors I think you'll find them surprisingly similar to how they are in this match, with HBK being the more worn down.

Once again I know it doesn't have anything to do with this match. You've kind of proved my point, as i was replying to someone who did use the streak as something.

Well, good.