WZ Tourney Semi Final: The Undertaker vs. Edge

[Uncle Sam]

Throw out the win loss records here. Edge gets the advantage because this isn't Wrestlemania.

Yeah, well neither were Backlash, Judgment Day or SummerSlam. You see what I'm doing here, right?

Secondly, Edge has the mental Edge. Taker's shtick won't work on him anymore. He has beaten Taker, outsmarted him numerous times, most notably, on Smackdown. I think Edge may be the only wrestler in Taker's head.

You'd think Edge might be shaken up by the memory of those few months he spent in Hell.

 

[The Dewbliners]

I voted Edge, and I'm an MF'er. Basically the reason I voted is, like FTS said, this ain't 'Mania. Undertakers unbeaten streak happens once a year. Any other time he's faced Edge, he's (basically), been defeated. Edge is too much of an enigma for UT to figure out. He's small, but not too much. He's got quickness, and power. That's like a double whammy!

On the other hand, what does Undertaker have? What, 5 moves and an irrelevant undefeated streak? We can pretty much rule out the dive o' doom, as it's not that special time of year. Let's face it, Undertaker's mediocre mind games won't cut it this time. Edge has conquered them all. I'm fairly certain E was there, helping UT at his most diabolacle. If anything, Edge is inside takers head.


Winning votes equal Edge.

Edit: I'm trying my best here, but everythings been said by Will and FTS, so it's hard to not repeat them.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Any other time Edge faces Taker other than WrestleMania, Taker has been defeated? What memory erasing drugs have you all been taking?

I mean, you put the qualifier "basically" in there, so I'm guessing you knew someone would come along and say it wasn't true in the least. On some level, you must have known.

I've managed to look up every match that Undertaker and Edge had one-on-one together during their recent feud, where I think most people would agree they were both pretty much in their primes.

Match One: WrestleMania 25, Regular Match - The Undertaker defeats Edge emphatically, taking two spears and finishing with a reversal of one into his patented choke hold. I don't really know if it is actually patented, but that's beside the point.

Match Two: Backlash, Regular Match - The Undertaker defeats Edge once again.

Match Three: Judgment Day - The Undertaker defeats Edge, taking him to the outside and beating him back to the ring to win by count-out. A win's a win, y'know? It'd be perfectly valid in this scenario.

Match Four: One Night Stand, Tables, Ladders and Chairs Match - Edge wins after quite honestly the most interference and cheating I have ever seen in one match. To this day, this is Edge's only one-on-one victory over the Deadman.

Match Five: SummerSlam, Hell in a Cell - atrocious match, in which Edge just jumps around holding objects for twenty minutes. Doesn't seem to phase Taker, who kicks the fuck out of him and chokeslams him through the ring afterwards... just to prove a point.

So yeah, there is no existing precedent to suggest Edge wins here. In its place, there seems to be the overwhelming suggestion that Edge could only beat The Undertaker in "his" match, after an incredible amount of interference, where The Undertaker was put through four tables and where there was no submission or pinfall required.

So yeah, The Undertaker unquestionably wins this one.

To be honest, I'm also befuddled why in a kayfabe tournament, a WrestleMania win is discounted just because it's The Undertaker.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I didn't say he didn't deserve to be here. I think he would have beaten Austin because Austin would have walked out rather than let someone like Edge go over. Still voted Austin, because I like him better.

I kinda like this. It's like you're trying to mask giving Edge some type of credit, yet you do it in a "He's still not worthy" type of way. So, let me get this straight.. you believe Edge is here for a reason. You even think its moderately deserved.

Yet only because you feel Austin would've walked out, instead of put him over. Well shit, does that make Edge The Next Big Thing, or Austin The Next Shitty Talent? Seriously now, walking out instead of helping the Company and the other Talent around you - by bitching out and walking out, whats that say? That you're immature and a lousy worker? I think so.

Edge, on the other hand - does every bit of what he can to help the Company succeed.

Just because your ego is out of this world, doesn't mean you are the judge of whether your posts are "OMFG" awesome. All you did was post your opinion.

I've never once thought of Myself, or my posts as any such thing. I have way too many people giving me credit for it, to even get the chance.

In all seriousness though, I'm truly sorry you approach me with jealousy, in thinking I believe I'm above you, or anyone else. I'm not, I assure you. I'm no more or less like you. The only difference is, I'll stand by my convictions, and I'll continue to strongly push my favorite - each and every time.

Each reply I give, I try to give at least a good enough reply, if not my best to what its regarding. And I jump on people, who reply like you do - in which they give an entitled-to opinion, but without any explanation with it.

How am I suppose to even take you seriously, or take anything you say as worth something, if you aren't backing up why you think the way you do?

Sorry if I came across as thinking I was better than everyone. Irony ain't it?

I think you need to look up the term "Irony", because it doesn't describe me, or anything remotely close to what you're replying to.

End of the day, Edge is pretty awesome, but he is not the best thing ever. Taker is. Joking, I was hoping for Kane to win the whole thing. You know, cause he can sit up. Okay again joking, I was pulling for Rock and Austin. Serious that time.

Well, Ronination, if I can be serious.. I think you can sum up this post, as well as the last one you made.. by merely ending it with saying "Joking", because I haven't taken anything out of either, as something more than one big joke.

When you finally get around to explaining your opinion, I'll respect You and possibly even debate you on it. Until then...

I will fight you day and night that Dennis Dixon never was injured and went on to win the Heisman Trophy and bring the NCAA Championship to Eugene in 2007. It happened, I tell you! It happened.

I'll counter this debate in saying Jake Delhomme didn't cost his team the Playoff game against the Arizona Cardinals, he was just color blind and thought each time he threw the ball.. those wearing Red, were actually wearing Black.

You're exactly right, though. Simply because someone has a history of winning against someone does not mean they will do it every time. The Red Sox have won every single game against the Yankees this year, but won't go undefeated against them this year.

I blame Ricky for us getting off topic on Wrestling, and on topic to every other sport that is irrelevant to this match-up.

I told someone his opinion was wrong the other day. So far, we seem to be agreeing.

I tell a lot of People their opinions are wrong. Whenever Ronination decides to give me his real one - I'll tell him, too. lol

Oh, and he we go, disagreeing again.

Well shit, I guess now I'm gonna have to type more.

Stop bringing up Lesnar, please. It hurts.

Hey, Don't blame me. I voted against Lesnar.. wait, that doesn't work the same, does it? Sorry.

You're right, but the victories that Edge has experienced in this tournament have no bearing in real life. He hasn't beaten Brock Lesnar and he hasn't beaten Steve Austin. Besides, The Undertaker is pretty damn good if you ask me, so if he's already gone through two superstars better, then he's gotta have some wear and tear.

This is where I continue to get confused. Half the people voting take this tournament as a "real thing", whereas You along with the other half, see it as fantasy.

While it is indeed Fantasy, it's meant to be seen as "really happening". Which means Edge did get those victories. And thus far, has been the (arguably) most impressive individual IN this tournament. Upsetting everyone, and shocking the world.. as only Edge knows how to do.

I wouldn't vote for a superstar based on popularity, though I could see an argument made. Typically, superstars that are over win big matches. John Cena, Chris Jericho, Triple H, and The Undertaker win matches because they get a reaction. Charlie Haas isn't wearing a belt right now. If indeed Edge's lead holds and he reaches the finals, I will back him against Bret Hart. I've never discounted Edge, but I've not put him over Lesnar, Austin, or Taker.

How is Edge not over? Furthermore, how has Edge not won big matches? Everyone you've named - Edge has beaten and defeated in one form or another. Cena, Jericho, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, the Undertaker..

Edge has technically even defeated Lesnar, in the Tag Team Tournament that Smackdown held. Edge & Mysterio defeated Lesnar & Tajiri. Sure, I never used it in the Lesnar argument. (I'm not stupid lol) But a win is a win, as many have said.

You can't disprove a fact. In each of the King of the Ring tournaments since 1991, every single finals match has been a face against a heel. But, as you stated earlier in your post:

Nothing is black and white in wrestling. Anything can happen on any given show. John Cena is 0-5 against The Miz, but who says he can't beat him on Sunday?

I think you accidentally just proved why Edge can defeat the Undertaker. So I'll leave it at that.

But are we going to try and be logical bookers in this tournament? This is wear we choose the outcomes of the matches. There is no one saying that in order for this tournament to have a satisfying final, we have to have a face against a heel. This is a tournament to crown the greatest wrestler of all time. This isn't a "Let's see how logically we can book a King of the Ring" tournament.

Once again though, if it were a "Greatest Wrestler of All Time" Final, why is it being contested between Chris Jericho, Bret Hart, The Undertaker & Edge?

Hey, I LOVE Edge, but wouldn't call him the Greatest. Hulk Hogan. Yes. Steve Austin. No. Shawn Michaels. Possibly getting there.

Regardless, no one involved is even remotely close to being considered "The Greatest". So that logic is no longer considerable, at least I don't think.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. Are you trying to discount The Undertaker's drawing ability, or his ability to effectively work in storylines? Are you saying that he can't hold the crowd's attention for an extended period of time?

Well, lets be serious on Taker's ability to hold a crowd - in all seriousness. He can electrify with his Entrance and mind games. Once the match starts, you hardly ever hear a reaction from the Crowd though. And when Taker motions for the Chokeslam, or Tombstone - people give slight reaction, but nothing huge.

Edge, on the flip side. He won't get a huge reaction for a Flashy entrance, but he can hold attention through his matches. And when he signals for his Spear, people stand and give reaction just the same.

Again - I'm not saying Taker can't draw, he definitely can. But so can Edge, and anyone who claims Taker can draw more needs to tell me if this is the case - why Edge has carried the same brand they've been on, for a longer period of time.

I don't have SlyFox's pie charts, so I can't argue whether or not he is a draw. I can say that he can work in a storyline, though. What was the best storyline on Smackdown through late 2007 and 2008? The Undertaker against Edge. To who's credit is that? It's a matter of opinion. The same goes for holding the crowd's attention. His feuds have always held mine. Whether that is his doing or the superstar that he is working with is up to you and I. I'm of the opinion that both superstars have to carry the load. But, if you think that he's boring or not entertaining, remember that he was given a gimmick that was doomed to fail from the start, yet he's made it work for over 15 years. I'd say that he does quite well at keeping the crowd interested.

This is why I believe he's more of a "Circus Attraction" than an overall Wrestling Superstar.

With the exception of his name, Edge has been more of an overall Superstar.. not an attraction focused on Super-natural features. Without the flashy gimmick, lights and fake abilities.. the Undertaker would be plain ol' Mark.

Edge, however, IS practically everything his character is. He took an Ultimate Opportunity when the story broke that he was fucking Amy Dumas. How is that not Adam Copeland taking an real life Ultimate Opportunity to become a huge star?

He's won at least 2-3 Heavyweight Championships off taking advantages of being in the right place, at the right time - due to others being injured. I'm not saying he couldn't of won just the same, obviously it can be proved he could.. however once again, it's Adam Copeland being Edge the character.

No, of course not. The heel always tries to undo the turnbuckle, grab a chair, use the ropes, etc. More often then not, the face overcomes.

Sure, if its to end some type of feud. There isn't a feud here, it's just another Tournament match to advance Edge. If this were the final, it might be a bit different because unless it's once in a while, the heels dirty tactics don't normally work in the very end. Thankfully, this isn't the very end.

I wouldn't say that it doesn't mean anything. I mean, if you were to place $500 on a football game between USC and Oregon and you knew that USC was 4-2 against Oregon in the last six years, who are you more likely to place a bet on? The person or team that holds a winning record in a match up is more likely to win. Anything can happen, but the odds favor the party with the winning record.

I'd say Wrestling is a bit different though, just because it's scripted and booked. It's not legit-played out.

Also, there's a mental aspect. If I was beaten and beaten and beaten over and over by one person, then I'd begin to doubt myself.

Edge had seen the destruction the Undertaker delivered to everyone he'd ever faced in Hell in a Cell, yet Edge went into that match unlike any other Taker opponent.. and took the fight to the Undertaker.

If a mental game was to be played, I'd argue that Edge would have the upper hand.. not the Deadman.

Undertaker would be relevant all throughout the year, or at least when he's around. Because when he's around, he wins.

I'm gonna need actual proof of this. Shy of the year Shocky pointed out, which was like what 2002 or something like that, Taker has to my knowledge not really had an overall great win/loss record in yearly events.

Of course, I also count no-showing events as a loss. So take that into consideration. I mean, honestly now - how many months do you need a break?

I don't see why it matters what your finisher looks like. The Leg Drop was pure shit, but it put EVERYONE away.

Try explaining this to the people who're still in strong belief that Edge's spear (the same Spear that's beaten Taker before) isn't strong enough to beat him, again.

Luckily for The Undertaker, then, that this isn't to win a tournament. That's next round.

Isn't it to win a tournament, though? If you lose, you won't be winning. If you win, you still have a shot.

I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think that the early Deadman was his prime.

If I were trying to prove Taker to be the best, I'd certainly push that version. He continued to no-sell and constantly sat-the fuck-up. LOL

But now, he's compelling and is able to put on great storylines that carry for months.

Or.. weeks, with little to no interest what so ever. Poor Shelton Benjamin.

Edge's entrance isn't exactly bland. He's got very loud, explosive music and he's had pyro before. Taker is also fairly good in the ring. Snake eyes, Old School, his suicide dive... All those signature moves get pretty good reactions.

Old School is about all I'd give him. The Suicide dive isn't so much a shocking move by him, much more than Taker being a "big guy" doing a "little guy" move. But okay, I'll give him that one. You've convinced me to.

So, we have two (signature) moves, that get a reaction. Edge has several signature moves that get similar reactions. I'm losing base on where this part of the debate was going.

And are you actually convinced that Edge hasn't ever been afraid of Taker? During their whole feud, save for just before Summerslam, Edge was scared shitless of the Undertaker.

I don't actually think he ever was, no. In the lead-up to Wrestlemania, Edge was booked horribly - but never showed fear. Yes, he ran away when it was one-on-one, after Taker laid out Edge's twins.. but what heel wouldn't?

In the end though, NONE of the matches between them have shown Edge doing what other Taker opponents have done in the past - trying to tuck tail and run. Edge took the fight to Taker.

As for accomplishments, yes. Edge has more World Titles. Taker is a guy that involves himself in storylines that don't have to do with belts. He's above the title, I'd say. Besides, in order for Edge to have that many world titles, he had to lose more.

Only Cena's above the title. Or at least that's how they book him. Taker's only above the title when he leaves for 5-6 months, then returns to Main Event a B-Show Pay per view against Mark Henry.

And yes, Edge has lost just as much as he's won, for World titles. But he continues to win them. Thats the point.

The Undertaker wins the vast majority of his matches aside from Mania as well, whereas Edge loses more than his fair share.

This could be argued. Fortunately, I'm tiring down and don't want to do research. I think in recent months, you'd be correct. Taker had that (way too fucking long) feud with the Big Show, in which Taker won like.. all the time. Whereas Edge just kept trading Championship reigns with Triple H and Jeff Hardy.

Still though, Edge = Main Event. Taker = meaningless undercard matches.

Well, shoot. Who's headlined more PPV's since Edge has become a main eventer, Hulk Hogan or Edge? It's been Edge. Who's main evented more PPV's in their career? Taker has.

Some day I'm actually going to check this out. While I'm not convinced (myself) that Edge has, I think he's come pretty close.. and in a much shorter time frame, too.

You can't hold that against him. Taker was once 37 or so and was there every week, like Edge.

But aren't most people basing Taker's prime on the Year's he was inactive for half of the time?

Edge hasn't beaten Triple H. Well, just kidding. He pinned him that one time his wife put him into the match after 20 minutes had passed.

Edge most certainly HAS defeated Triple H, multiple times. Not just at Survivor Series, but on episodes of Raw and Smackdown as well. (Hey, a win is a win - thats what the morale of this round is apparently boiled down to.)

Yeah, well neither were Backlash, Judgment Day or SummerSlam. You see what I'm doing here, right?

Trying to further point out that this match-up isn't like any of the rest??? And thus, none of those matches should be relevant?

Sorry, maybe you should've just told me. I'm bouncing back and forth from who's trying to use what logic. Are you apart of the group who thinks Taker's 4-2 record over Edge WILL mean he should win this.

Or are you apart of the group that believes just because he's won more, doesn't mean he'd win them all (including this one)? I'm lost.

You'd think Edge might be shaken up by the memory of those few months he spent in Hell.

It was likely a vacation when you consider he didn't have to spend 3 months trying to play off actually loving Vickie.

To be honest, I'm also befuddled why in a kayfabe tournament, a WrestleMania win is discounted just because it's The Undertaker.

Because people are discounting a "gimmick match" victory for Edge, and the Undertaker at Wrestlemania is like it's only gimmick match. The guy has a streak that is now beCOME a very large piece of Wrestlemania.

For him to win or lose, is now become a very big issue. Its the one time during the year, that the Undertaker is relevant for something.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Trying to further point out that this match-up isn't like any of the rest???

No, because it is. This is a straight up singles match like they all were. If you want to bring up tournament fatigue, we can, even though the notion that The Undertaker is an old man and can't handle his wrestling holds no water, and Edge likely had a harder time with Austin than Taker did with Benoit - at least that's how the voters seemed to think.

Sorry, maybe you should've just told me. I'm bouncing back and forth from who's trying to use what logic. Are you apart of the group who thinks Taker's 4-2 record over Edge WILL mean he should win this.

Except neither of Edge's "wins" have any sort of legitimacy. They're probably irrelevant.

Because people are discounting a "gimmick match" victory for Edge, and the Undertaker at Wrestlemania is like it's only gimmick match. The guy has a streak that is now beCOME a very large piece of Wrestlemania.

The gimmick match victory is discounted for two reasons:

1) This isn't a gimmick match, therefore that match isn't relevant. If Edge climbs a ladder and grabs a belt, good for him. Unfortunately, it's a waste of his time.

2) It took five men to take The Undertaker down, and they did so with incredible difficulty.

Edge's only relevant victory is, well, not relevant. The Undertaker was left a mess by a cage match with Batista and then beaten down by Mark Henry.

Edit: Overall, the notion that Edge losing all his relevant matches to The Undertaker meaning he'll win here is a ludicrous one.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

No, because it is. This is a straight up singles match like they all were. If you want to bring up tournament fatigue, we can, even though the notion that The Undertaker is an old man and can't handle his wrestling holds no water, and Edge likely had a harder time with Austin than Taker did with Benoit - at least that's how the voters seemed to think.



Except neither of Edge's "wins" have any sort of legitimacy. They're probably irrelevant.



The gimmick match victory is discounted for two reasons:

1) This isn't a gimmick match, therefore that match isn't relevant. If Edge climbs a ladder and grabs a belt, good for him. Unfortunately, it's a waste of his time.

2) It took five men to take The Undertaker down, and they did so with incredible difficulty.

Edge's only relevant victory is, well, not relevant. The Undertaker was left a mess by a cage match with Batista and then beaten down by Mark Henry.

Edit: Overall, the notion that Edge losing all his relevant matches to The Undertaker meaning he'll win here is a ludicrous one.

Okay Sam, I'm going to go slow.

During the entire Edge/Taker feud, Edge never tried to win fairly, or always had help winning (except the original cash-in match) from the "Family." Its because of the fact that Edge always knew he had help not too far behind him, that he could've easily ultimately lost. Because he simply didn't put everything out there.

I'm sure you could argue this, I'm sure people will complain and moan about it. But prove to me this; WHY would you put all your effort into something - when you could've easily just coasted by and allowed others to help you, instead? Then, when you realize that help suddenly isn't doing you any good - ultimately be screwed, because it's too late.

Yes, it was Edge's fault he lost each of those matches. But not because he simply wasn't able to win any of them. Clearly, once again, he's defeated Taker by his own accord. I'd wager to bet he lost them, because in his own mind - he was waiting for his back-up, to help him more often than not.

In THIS situation, it'd be different because there is no back-up. So he'd know this, and put forth everything he had. Something I don't believe he's ever done against Taker, in a regular single's match.

Look at some of his all-time best matches. Against the likes of Cena, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Big Show, Triple H, Mick Foley, the Hardys. Sure - none of them are the Undertaker, but all of them have two common bonds. One, They've been defeated by an Edge, who hasn't had La Familia helping him to gain a victory. Two, They've all defeated the Undertaker in their own rights. Which while it's connecting dots and I know people hate doing that.. it still proves he can obviously win.

So it's ludicrous as you say, to think Edge couldn't win now - just because he hadn't won before. To continue saying he hasn't won before is a blatant lie. Clearly he has, twice. If not more when you count all the Tag victories. Whoopidity Do, one was a gimmick - the other was directly after Taker was beaten down. A victory is a victory. To discount Edge's, but count Taker's is whats truly ludicrous. Pinning, defeating and overall WINNING over someone - counts, regardless.

And on another note, once again look at all the profile Tournament matches that Edge has been in. He's won them. He wins in tournament situations. Obviously that needs to be a factor, if you're going to use the same tireless argument that Taker's won in the past - so he should again. Then connect to this, that the Undertaker flat-out sucks major ass in Tournaments.. and you have yourself a situation that heavily favors Edge, and heavily goes against Taker.

I could make a ton of comparisons that prove Edge could win, that wouldn't seem far-fetched or unbelievable. However, to merely and repeatedly use the same naive logic of He's beaten him more than he's lost to him is just falling into a trap, if you ask me. Look at the track record for almost every feud that's had multiple matches. Sooner or later, things even out.

All Taker having more victories from the past means - is Edge is due for a victory, now.

 

[D-Man]

Know what, I am completely baffled by this round of the tournament. I mean, I respect the living crap out of Will for posting some of the best arguments for Edge to be victorious here. I swear, if Will was a Funaki mark he'd probably have half of the people that vote on here convinced that Funaki could beat the Undertaker. But does everyone REALLY need this much convincing about this matchup???

I looked at the matchup, saw that it was KOTR rules, saw that it was Taker vs. Edge, and IMMEDIATELY voted for ther Undertaker. Does everyone REALLY need to read the last 8 pages of arguments on this match?? People... It's the F'in PHENOM vs. Edge!!

Let's face it, Edge is tough... I mean f'in TOUGH. The man has been completely underestimated in the past. I truly believe he deserved to go far in this tourney, but not this far... especially not as far as beating Austin. That doesn't matter now, obviously, but he can't go any further. We need a superstar who's claim to fame ISN'T manipulation and cheating to win matches. If all of you vote for Edge, you're basically saying that all you need to be the best kayfabe wrestler in the world is to be an opportunist... a lying, cheating, dirty, unfair, bullshit opportunist.

Edge is facing the man who, after only one year of being in the WWE, beat Hulk Hogan in his prime, tore up Mick Foley and HBK in a HIAC match when they were in their primes, has beaten the largest athletes in the world, has a 17-0 Wrestlemania record (against VERY reputable opponents, I might add), and all of those victories were CLEAN!!! (Will, please don't list Edge's resume for the 90th time here...)

The Undertaker, as much as I loath him, is the epitome of the ultimate wrestler. He has been quoted as "the personification of everything that this business is about." He is the toughest, most respected, most reliable, and most believeable talents to ever be produced in the sport of professional wrestling. If you stop his run in this tournament, you're all cheating yourselves. Be smart everyone...

VOTE UNDERTAKER!!!

 

[ErictheEnt]

I know I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but each and every one of you who have voted for Edge are freakin' ******ed. You're playing favorites and I know each and every one of you who have voted for him had to spend a long time trying to dream up some weird fantasy about how Edge on the craziest day of his life could pull a count out win over the Undertaker. You do a discredit to this tournament and should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Uncle Sam]

During the entire Edge/Taker feud, Edge never tried to win fairly, or always had help winning (except the original cash-in match) from the "Family." Its because of the fact that Edge always knew he had help not too far behind him, that he could've easily ultimately lost. Because he simply didn't put everything out there.

So we're going on pure conjecture here? Because, ultimately, Edge has never, ever demonstrated he could cleanly defeat The Undertaker at any point in his career. I mean, he seemed to try pretty hard in the matches where he didn't have back-up, but he still lost.

At WrestleMania and SummerSlam at least, he had no help and was clearly trying his absolute hardest to keep the Deadman down, but to no avail. I haven't seen the Judgment Day or Backlash matches, but I'm sure he didn't sit there chillin' in those matches either. I'm not even sure if there was interference in those two matches.

I'm sure you could argue this, I'm sure people will complain and moan about it. But prove to me this; WHY would you put all your effort into something - when you could've easily just coasted by and allowed others to help you, instead?

Because you're not good enough to do it by yourself? Seems like a good enough reason to me.

Yes, it was Edge's fault he lost each of those matches. But not because he simply wasn't able to win any of them.

Yeah, but it was though, wasn't it?

Clearly, once again, he's defeated Taker by his own accord. I'd wager to bet he lost them, because in his own mind - he was waiting for his back-up, to help him more often than not.

So now we're presuming that Edge forgot to tell the guys to come out and help in the matches? Because that's the only way this argument works.

In THIS situation, it'd be different because there is no back-up. So he'd know this, and put forth everything he had. Something I don't believe he's ever done against Taker, in a regular single's match.

WrestleMania. Two spears. Bitch got choked out. SummerSlam. Metal objects everywhere. Got owned again.

Look at some of his all-time best matches. Against the likes of Cena, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Big Show, Triple H, Mick Foley, the Hardys. Sure - none of them are the Undertaker, but all of them have two common bonds. One, They've been defeated by an Edge, who hasn't had La Familia helping him to gain a victory. Two, They've all defeated the Undertaker in their own rights. Which while it's connecting dots and I know people hate doing that.. it still proves he can obviously win.

No, it doesn't. It proves that wrestling isn't a game of Top Trumps. It's more a case of rock, paper, scissors.

All Taker having more victories from the past means - is Edge is due for a victory, now.

Spike Dudley's due a win over Steve Austin.

So, your argument is composed of the following things:

1) Edge wasn't trying in his matches against The Undertaker

Well, he does a good impression of somebody that's trying his hardest. This is quite honestly an appalling argument which wouldn't make sense even if there weren't so many holes in the supposed evidence that it looked like swiss cheese.

2) Edge is better at tournaments

How many has he won other than King of the Ring 2001? In my book, beating Rhyno then getting made Kurt Angle's bitch, only for Shane McMahon to save your ass is not really a great tournament experience.

3) Edge is due a win against The Undertaker

This argument, sadly for those putting it forward, doubles up as "a precedent has been set that The Undertaker is much better than Edge... so Edge wins?". I mean, yeah, Kaientai are due a win over Brock Lesnar, but they ain't gonna get it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I know I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but each and every one of you who have voted for Edge are freakin' ******ed. You're playing favorites and I know each and every one of you who have voted for him had to spend a long time trying to dream up some weird fantasy about how Edge on the craziest day of his life could pull a count out win over the Undertaker. You do a discredit to this tournament and should be ashamed of yourselves.

I guess a ******ed guy won't be able to type this eloquent post then. Who's to say the Undertaker won't be disqualified. It has happened before against Muhammad Hassan, JBL, and Mr. Kennedy. The Undertaker can get frustrated just as Edge can and I don't believe he's immune to that. I look at each match objectively and I choose who would win this particular match not taking into account the previous matches. I voted Khali over Undertaker in the first round because I believed that Khali would win that particular match and Taker is my favorite wrestler.

I'm ashamed that you posted something like that. Calm down, collect yourself, and come back and make a better post.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I know I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but each and every one of you who have voted for Edge are freakin' ******ed. You're playing favorites and I know each and every one of you who have voted for him had to spend a long time trying to dream up some weird fantasy about how Edge on the craziest day of his life could pull a count out win over the Undertaker. You do a discredit to this tournament and should be ashamed of yourselves.

There is no good explanation for this, so I'm just going to come right out and say it.

WHERE IS YOUR POINT?!​

I see you running your mouth, but I'm pretty sure outside of calling me, and about roughly 54 others "freakin' ******ed", you didn't really do much except for spam.

You're right, I did spend a decent amount of time on each of my posts in this thread. Here's a random thought, try it some time. You might not look nearly as foolish and silly. You come in here, saying Edge can't do this, can't do that.. but where's your logic, where's your theory? Hell, you claim he couldn't even pull off a count-out victory - when you're proven wrong right there. He hasn't just pulled off a victory, but it was one in which Taker's shoulders were actually pinned to the mat.

When you actually decide to post something of relevance. And prove even slightly why Edge doesn't stand a chance, I'll spend even more time putting you in your place.

Know what, I am completely baffled by this round of the tournament.

I KNEW you were gonna show up sooner or later in this thread. I just knew it. I said to myself, I said "Self, The D-Man has big enough balls to debate with you, he's sure to show up and post something worth reading." And here you are, so let's see what you've got.

I mean, I respect the living crap out of Will for posting some of the best arguments for Edge to be victorious here. I swear, if Will was a Funaki mark he'd probably have half of the people that vote on here convinced that Funaki could beat the Undertaker. But does everyone REALLY need this much convincing about this matchup???

Okay, first.. I could NEVER make a believable argument for Funaki to win anything. Much less here. That's just not logical. Hornswoggle, maybe. Santino, possibly. Funaki, no.

Second, I thought the same exact thing about convincing. I mean, on one side of this match.. you have a NINE TIME World Heavyweight Champion. And on the other, you have this guy.. who randomly takes time off for half the year, and his most important thing going right now, is a winning streak at Wrestlemania. Not bad, but not anywhere remotely near being a NINE TIME World Heavyweight Champion. (That's 3rd, all-time, behind Ric Flair & Triple H in the W.W.E)

I looked at the matchup, saw that it was KOTR rules, saw that it was Taker vs. Edge, and IMMEDIATELY voted for ther Undertaker.

SO, you admit to being foolish and jumping the gun. I knew it. Most people probably did that. I'm ashamed. Didn't even give me a chance, either. Thats what really hurts, cause you know I could've won your vote.

Does everyone REALLY need to read the last 8 pages of arguments on this match?? People... It's the F'in PHENOM vs. Edge!!

Did you just try hyping the Undertaker, mid-post?

And I hope they decide to take a looksie at the previous 8 pages. Thats where most of my work is. Quit trying to get them not to read my stuff, D-Man.

Let's face it, Edge is tough... I mean f'in TOUGH.

Agreed.

The man has been completely underestimated in the past.

Absolutely. Very under-estimated.

I truly believe he deserved to go far in this tourney,

100% right there with you.

but not this far...

Ag.. whoa.. what? Come again?!

especially not as far as beating Austin.

Yeah.. Cause I can't even begin to imagine how he destroyed a drunk Wife beater. Oh yeah, I went there.

That doesn't matter now, obviously,

Obviously.. but for purpose sake, why'd ya bring it up, huh? Expecting to get the Austin-minority on your side.. tisk, tisk.

but he can't go any further.

Well he can if people keep voting him, Silly. Which mind you, I sincerely hope they do. It's making me very happy.

We need a superstar who's claim to fame ISN'T manipulation and cheating to win matches.

Luckily for us, Edge's claim to fame is banging Amy Dumas. All the Undertaker's even done is dry-humped McStool.

If all of you vote for Edge, you're basically saying that all you need to be the best kayfabe wrestler in the world is to be an opportunist... a lying, cheating, dirty, unfair, bullshit opportunist.

Eddie Guerrero is dead, please D-Man, have some respect.

And on that note - whats wrong with all those tactics? Isn't it what makes a great heel? Isn't Edge a heel? Why can't a heel be the best? Surely there is such a thing as The Greatest Heel.

Edge is facing the man who, after only one year of being in the WWE, beat Hulk Hogan in his prime,

With help from Ric Flair, Mr. Perfect & a Steel Chair. Why do people keep leaving that out?

He's also facing the man who SIX DAYS later, lost to Hulk Hogan, cleanly.

tore up Mick Foley and HBK in a HIAC match when they were in their primes,

I'm pretty sure this was about roughly a decade and a half later though. So which Undertaker-Era are you backing?

Oh, and.. who won that H.B.K/HIAC match, again?

It's entirely feasible to tear someone up - yet still lose, you know this, right?

has beaten the largest athletes in the world,

Edge has, too! Who hasn't?

has a 17-0 Wrestlemania record (against VERY reputable opponents, I might add),

Two were against Kane, that shouldn't count twice. Also, when did Albert & Mark Henry become reputable opponents?

And does it really count, when over half of the list was past their Wrestling prime? King Kong Bundy, Ric Flair, Jimmy Snuka, Jake Roberts.. really now.. that's hardly a reputable list of names.

and all of those victories were CLEAN!!!

Ric Flair's busted open head from a motorcycle wrench would bleed to tell you differently.

(Will, please don't list Edge's resume for the 90th time here...)

Why not? You're check marking Taker's for the 100th. It's not my fault Edge's resume scares you.

The Undertaker, as much as I loath him, is the epitome of the ultimate wrestler.

The Ultimate Wrestler is a side-show act? Doink is gonna love knowing this. Apparently he's missed out on all those opportunities to be something great.

He has been quoted as "the personification of everything that this business is about."

When the shit was this? Proof, I demand proof of when this was said. By whom, where, when.

Seriously. I'm calling bluff and bullshit on this one.

He is the toughest,

Austin would disagree. So would Mark Henry. Oh, you said toughest, not strongest - Austin yes. Henry, no.

most respected,

This I'll agree with. He's made a decent name for himself being respectable.. in the back.

most reliable,

Sure, if you call reliable missing half the year and only putting on a truly above average performance every Wrestlemania.

and most believeable talents to ever be produced in the sport of professional wrestling.

Wait, the most believable talent. Seriously? I mean, no, really.. are you serious?

His character is that of a corpse. How the shit is that even slightly, remotely believable?! Really now, D-Man - this is very far fetched and way off the charts of unrealistic.

If you stop his run in this tournament, you're all cheating yourselves.

I think they cheated themselves when they allowed him to get by Sting. I'd of considered voting Sting over Edge.. but not a walking corpse.

Taker is a huge pile of shit, wrapped in black and packaged with a fog machine and eerie music. The guy is tremendously overrated and a lot of people who've hyped him in this thread alone is proving that more and more with each passing day.

Be smart everyone...

VOTE UNDERTAKER!!!

D-Man, I am being smart. I'm listing actual logic and theories on how Edge can win, should win, and hopefully WILL WIN.

I'm sorry you jumped the gun. It's a shame you did that. But to everyone who hasn't yet.. hopefully, you'll think about one thing..

VOTE EDGE!!!!

I used an extra exclamation point, to get my statement across.

 

[2012isbs]

Edge has only beaten Tkaer with help (i.e. La Familia and the MITB case). This crap about him not trying because he iknew help was one the way if he lost makes no sense infact at WM 24 Taekr won even though he was hit with 2 spears, a movie camera and the Edgeheads interfered only to never make past the ring apron because Taker threw one on top of the other. He also had EDge pinned but the ref was knocked out so another ref ran in and it took like 7 seconds then edge kicked then after countering a spear into a gogoplat he won so Taker pinned edge twice in that match and had hi tap. Also Taker's count out win can still happen this is a normal match however Edge's wins will not becaseu Tkaer will not have been in a brutal cage match with Batista tehn destroyed by Mark Henry and La Familia can easily be stopped when a ladder isn't involved so vote Taker.

 

[ace frehley]

Repeat.
What happened in the past?
Undertaker won. When it was fought fairly, Undertaker took the match every time.

Why should this time be any different?

Looking forward to the repeat...

 

[D-Man]

YAYYYYYYY!!! MY TURN!!!! It's about time, Will. I figured I'd hear back from you quicker... Only 25 minutes?? you're slipping, pal

I KNEW you were gonna show up sooner or later in this thread. I just knew it. I said to myself, I said "Self, The D-Man has big enough balls to debate with you, he's sure to show up and post something worth reading." And here you are, so let's see what you've got.

Hi!

Okay, first.. I could NEVER make a believable argument for Funaki to win anything. Much less here. That's just not logical. Hornswoggle, maybe. Santino, possibly. Funaki, no.

Don't sell yourself short. You're pro-Edge arguments are probably about 75% of the reason why he's come this far. And if you deny it then you're only lying to yourself. PS - That's actually a compliment.

Second, I thought the same exact thing about convincing. I mean, on one side of this match.. you have a NINE TIME World Heavyweight Champion. And on the other, you have this guy.. who randomly takes time off for half the year, and his most important thing going right now, is a winning streak at Wrestlemania. Not bad, but not anywhere remotely near being a NINE TIME World Heavyweight Champion. (That's 3rd, all-time, behind Ric Flair & Triple H in the W.W.E)

Ugh... do you HAVE to go there?? 9 times?!? Who gives a squirt of rat's piss. Do I have to use the "he lost it 9 times" argument for this? Or should I talk about how two of his wins were by the money in the bank briefcase... etc, etc, etc, blah, blah blah. We've all heard you're transparent arguments here and you can keep trying to play them off like they make Edge look like a worthy opponent here, but the facts should outweigh your positive words.

SO, you admit to being foolish and jumping the gun. I knew it. Most people probably did that. I'm ashamed. Didn't even give me a chance, either. Thats what really hurts, cause you know I could've won your vote.

*yawn*

Did you just try hyping the Undertaker, mid-post?

Um, does it really matter where the 'placement' of my argument is to defend myself? Or is this just another cheesy way to make you look like you have any substance, whatsoever, in some of your arguments? Come on... you're better than that.

And I hope they decide to take a looksie at the previous 8 pages. Thats where most of my work is. Quit trying to get them not to read my stuff, D-Man.

If anyone reading knows you, they've ALL read your posts, whether I like it or not. You're a killer poster and probably the only reason why Edge is where he's at right now. But it doesn't mean your arguments hold water.

Yeah.. Cause I can't even begin to imagine how he destroyed a drunk Wife beater. Oh yeah, I went there.

Oh, that's right. Because a home-wrecker is much better. Will, don't be an ass and bring up real-life stuff. This is a kayfabe tourney, bro. Don't drift off subject to make a point.

Obviously.. but for purpose sake, why'd ya bring it up, huh? Expecting to get the Austin-minority on your side.. tisk, tisk.

No matter what I say, it doesn't matter. Austin lost. But I think I should remind everyone of the mistake they made.

Well he can if people keep voting him, Silly. Which mind you, I sincerely hope they do. It's making me very happy.

Obviously LOL.

Luckily for us, Edge's claim to fame is banging Amy Dumas. All the Undertaker's even done is dry-humped McStool.

Once again, you have to lower yourself to bringing up real life facts in a kayfabe tournament. Can we stick to the facts instead of bringing up ANYTHING that actually makes your arguments sound like they have validity? Man, you're really disappointing me here.

Eddie Guerrero is dead, please D-Man, have some respect.

*crickets, crickets* Not even funny. Once again, let's not move the attention span of our audience away from the sheer facts. Edge is not tough... he's a cheater. He wins tough matches, but the majority of the time in truly BIG-MATCH situations, he can't do it by himself.

When people think of Edge, the first thing they think of is a cheater. When they think of the Undertaker, the first thing they think of is a tough mother fucker. That says a lot.

And on that note - whats wrong with all those tactics? Isn't it what makes a great heel? Isn't Edge a heel? Why can't a heel be the best? Surely there is such a thing as The Greatest Heel.

100% agreed. I will never argue that Edge is one of the best heels around. To be honest, he's my favorite heel on television right now. But being a heel doesn't mean you could kick the Undertaker's ass in a match. Apples and oranges, bro.

With help from Ric Flair, Mr. Perfect & a Steel Chair. Why do people keep leaving that out?

Yeah, the ONE time the Taker won in his earlier days by cheating, and not even by his own doing. As far as I remember, Flair and the Taker didn't collaborate on that win. Flair just wanted to crew Hogan over and he succeeded. But, according to you it shouldn't matter. You say that cheating is just a part of the game and a win is a win, right?? So, the Undertaker WON. But you still can't compare the amount of CLEAN wins the Taker has had over the years compared to Edge's bullshit wins that came after he cashed in his first briefcase. The Taker EARNED his titles. Edge STOLE his.

He's also facing the man who SIX DAYS later, lost to Hulk Hogan, cleanly.

You call getting hit in the head with Paul Bearer's urn CLEAN?!? Once again, Will, you're better than that. If you're going to memorize Edge's wrestling history, maybe you should do more research on other superstars before making 100% untrue statements like that.

I'm pretty sure this was about roughly a decade and a half later though. So which Undertaker-Era are you backing?

I'm not picking one of his eras... I'm combining them all. Just the way I look at Edge's history. I combine their entire persona from their entire careers and see who would come out on top. It's the only fair way to vote here. The Taker's history takes a dumb on Edge's.

Oh, and.. who won that H.B.K/HIAC match, again?

Here we go again... Kane interfered. Please don't act like that was a legitimate win. The majority of the Taker's losses throughout his career was from interference or cheating of some sort.

It's entirely feasible to tear someone up - yet still lose, you know this, right?

Of course, but if cheating makes someone a better wrestler in a kayfabe matchup, then ANYONE could win. So, let's go back to the Funaki argument. I think Funaki could beat Edge, too. Why? Because it's possible that he could bring a machinegun to the ring and shoot Edge dead. There, do you feel you're point is justified now?

Two were against Kane, that shouldn't count twice.

Why the hell not? The wins were at two peaks in Kane's career. And by saying that it shouldn't count twice, you're calling Kane a pushover. Do you really want to go there?

Also, when did Albert & Mark Henry become reputable opponents?

When they were worthy enough to participate in a Wrestlemania match against the Undertaker. I think that makes them reputable. If they got there, they deserved it at the time.

And does it really count, when over half of the list was past their Wrestling prime? King Kong Bundy, Ric Flair, Jimmy Snuka, Jake Roberts.. really now.. that's hardly a reputable list of names.

What difference does this make? Like Edge never faced a bullshit opponent. Just because it was at WM and it was against the Taker, that makes it different??

Ric Flair's busted open head from a motorcycle wrench would bleed to tell you differently.

It was a NO-DQ match. That's like saying that Edge's phenomenal ladder match victories were bullshit because he used a ladder as a foreign object. I wouldn't go there and quite frankly I'm surprised that you did. That was either a desperate attempt to prove me wrong or just some more bad reseach on wrestlers BESIDES Edge.

Why not? You're check marking Taker's for the 100th. It's not my fault Edge's resume scares you.

His resume doesn't scare me. Your posts do

The Ultimate Wrestler is a side-show act? Doink is gonna love knowing this. Apparently he's missed out on all those opportunities to be something great.

This really perplexes me. I honestly don't know where this came from and to me it makes no sense. Can you clarify?

When the shit was this? Proof, I demand proof of when this was said. By whom, where, when.

Seriously. I'm calling bluff and bullshit on this one.

No problem. Greatest Wrestlers of the 90's DVD. Spoken words by Jim Ross. Happy now?

I don't make up quotes, my man.

Austin would disagree. So would Mark Henry. Oh, you said toughest, not strongest - Austin yes. Henry, no.

Once again, *crickets*

This I'll agree with. He's made a decent name for himself being respectable.. in the back.

So his in-ring work never gained respect with anyone? Dude, seriously... you're trying too hard and you're now beginning to sound stupid.

Sure, if you call reliable missing half the year and only putting on a truly above average performance every Wrestlemania.

Injuries happen. Even Edge broke his neck. But, according to you, Edge is unreliable because he missed a year of action because of it.

So children, the moral of this BS story is that wrestlers that are injury-free are better than wrestlers that get hurt in the ring while killing themselves to entertain you. Come on, Will...

Wait, the most believable talent. Seriously? I mean, no, really.. are you serious?

His character is that of a corpse. How the shit is that even slightly, remotely believable?! Really now, D-Man - this is very far fetched and way off the charts of unrealistic.

You crack me up with this. So, just because his on-screen character is a corpse, that makes him not believeable? So we should ignore that he is 6-foot, 10 1/2 inch, 300lb, muscular, chiseled monster of a man? Oh, that's right. Just because he plays a corpse on TV then he must be a pussy. Ok, so that means Arnold Schwarzenegger can land on a Panamanian island and realistically kill over 100 soldiers by himself like in Commando?? Will, come on. Your reasoning is getting worse and worse.

I think they cheated themselves when they allowed him to get by Sting. I'd of considered voting Sting over Edge.. but not a walking corpse.

Thanks for proving that even YOU had doubts about him making it this far in this tounament. See everyone?? Even Will can't believe it.

Taker is a huge pile of shit, wrapped in black and packaged with a fog machine and eerie music. The guy is tremendously overrated and a lot of people who've hyped him in this thread alone is proving that more and more with each passing day.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. I think Edge is a cheating, cheap, skin and bones, piece of dogshit. But that doesn't mean he should win here.

D-Man, I am being smart. I'm listing actual logic and theories on how Edge can win, should win, and hopefully WILL WIN.

You ARE smart, but you're not BEING smart with your arguments here. Your logic is more twisted than a wet towel and your theories have more holes than swiss cheese. But good luck to you anyway. I still think you totally rock are are one of the best debaters/posters on this damn website by far.

EDIT:

I said to myself, I said "Self, The D-Man has big enough balls to debate with you, he's sure to show up and post something worth reading."

PS - I am TOTALLY sigging this.

 

[NSL]

Edge winning this is just wrong...Besides saving the tag team division for a few years, what has he done of importance, ever, in his career? He doesn't have any credible title wins outside of the tag division, that I can remember, and he's always needed a woman to get to the top. I agree with D-Man. He's a lying, cheating, stealing, moron, who would have a great career if he got by on talent, instead of screwing his way to the top, in every sense of the word. We have video evidence of Taker beating Edge, more than we have of Edge beating Taker. That's proof enough, no matter how much poo Will spews out.

Yeah.. Cause I can't even begin to imagine how he destroyed a drunk Wife beater. Oh yeah, I went there.

Will, you must not have read the rules...It's called the Benoit rule. I believe Shocky cited Austin as a specific example. The man Edge beat wasn't a "drunken wife beater" in the ring, he was a wrestler.

Luckily for us, Edge's claim to fame is banging Amy Dumas. All the Undertaker's even done is dry-humped McStool.

Not that it makes a difference in the voting, but I feel the need to correct you...McCool's biggest accomplishment is banging the Undertaker. Edge's is actually banging Vickie. It got him more title wins, and more heel heat than banging Amy.

 

[Coco]

Will, I was really hoping you would have responded to my post.

I'm extremely confused here. So by all means Will, catch me up. The Undertaker won a match at Wrestlemania and at Backlash, but that doesn't matter because this isn't Mania or Backlash? In your view, they're not comparable to the current setting... Why? They're far more comparable to this setting than the TLC match or the MITB cash-in you love bringing up. This isn't TLC, and Taker hasn't just been through a cage match war with Batista and gotten beaten down by Mark Henry. In standard one on one matches, like the one being contested right now, La Famila and Edge's dirty tactics have straight up failed before. But those don't matter because of the events they took place at? Odd... because you brought up how much Edge's WM21 win matters. Oh, but we have different rules for Taker because he's good enough for be undefeated? I think not.

If the Mania and Backlash wins for Taker don't matter, surely the MITB cash-in and TLC don't either and you should never bring them up again. After all, if you're going to say Edge losing matters less because it was Mania (where he, in reality, stood no chance because Taker always wins there) and Backlash (to prevent Taker from looking like shit, according to you... a crap argument, but okay), don't Edge's wins in the MITB cash-in and ONS matter even less? After all, Edge only got those wins because Taker needed time off.

But looking closer, I think I'm seeing Will getting owned at every turn. So my involvement isn't really needed..

So now we're presuming that Edge forgot to tell the guys to come out and help in the matches? Because that's the only way this argument works.

You seem to forget that The Edge Guys ran in during the Mania match and got taken out with ease. T'was great. Edge even used a camera in that match and failed.

Edge, however, IS practically everything his character is. He took an Ultimate Opportunity when the story broke that he was fucking Amy Dumas. How is that not Adam Copeland taking an real life Ultimate Opportunity to become a huge star?

He intended for the story to break because he was taking an opprotunity? Right... Explain this one a little slower, I'm way confused again.

Old School is about all I'd give him. The Suicide dive isn't so much a shocking move by him, much more than Taker being a "big guy" doing a "little guy" move. But okay, I'll give him that one. You've convinced me to.

So, we have two (signature) moves, that get a reaction. Edge has several signature moves that get similar reactions.

Taker's running, flying clothesline gets a reactioin on a regular basis as does his running DDT. The chokeslam, the tombstone, the last ride... The Edgecution (Edge's DDT thing, right? Or is that the Edge-O-Matic... I have such a hard time keeping track of his moves' stupid names) off them top fucking rope got a feeble reaction a couple months ago... So what are these Edge moves that get this great reaction?

Also, what's the deal with saying Taker gets no reaction in his matches? His matches with Batista were damn hot, his interaction with Triple H at the begining of the year got pops, even his work with Orton got a reaction. Taker-Angle and Taker-Lesnar, if I recall correctly, were got a decent crowd reaction. But Edge's matches with Taker produced reactions that were comparitively pathetic. Why shouldn't I blame Edge? Why shouldn't I write Edge off as "that guy who works with the guys who make the money"? It was definately Cena, Batista, and Hardy who carried most of the heat in their feuds with Edge.

Still though, Edge = Main Event. Taker = meaningless undercard matches.

If anything, Taker has been booked above the title for most of his career; a sort of special attraction. Painting him as any sort of midcarder is not accurate.

 

[Boss]

If this tournament is held in keyfabe then the Undertaker should win because he doesn't lose matches at the biggest show of the year. So by keyfabe logic a 200+ man tournament for the crown of greatest wrestler ever would be bigger than Wrestlemania. If Edge couldn't beat 'taker at 'mania, I doubt he'd win now.

If this tournament is based on quality of the performer, well I might not be experts like the rest of you on the subject of wrestling but, one of these men has consistently been a part of the main event for 20 years and the other hasn't.

That being said vote Undertaker.

 

[Shocky]

Woww, someone really went to the Austin Wife beater comment, in defending an adulterous, locker room code breaking, wellness policy failing athlete known as Adam Copelan, what you all know as Edge. Seriously, that shit has nothing to do with the tourney, and the reasons why we keep it kayfabe. Why does Austin beating his wife have anything to do with his credentials as a wrestler, and especially in defense of a guy that is pretty much morally reprehensible as a human being.

Stick to the match, because trying to compare the character of Edge, against the Undertaker, who might possibly be the most respected man in the WWE's locker room now, if not in its history is flat out silly.

 

[jpfizzle]

I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if this is regurgitating what's already been said. Unless this match is at Wrestlemania Edge would have it in the bag. Sure Undertaker has been around a long time, so has Edge compared to many other wrestlers. Edge has won 3 more world titles in WWE than the Undertaker, and the two have a number of victories over each other. Undertaker chose Edge early in his career to join the ministry of darkness. Even he could see the potential in a young Adam Copeland. Edge is a recent star, in a few years time it will be a no brainer- Edge is already a more decorated athlete than the Undertaker.

 

[simpsons_fanatic742]

I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if this is regurgitating what's already been said. Unless this match is at Wrestlemania Edge would have it in the bag. Sure Undertaker has been around a long time, so has Edge compared to many other wrestlers. Edge has won 3 more world titles in WWE than the Undertaker, and the two have a number of victories over each other. Undertaker chose Edge early in his career to join the ministry of darkness. Even he could see the potential in a young Adam Copeland. Edge is a recent star, in a few years time it will be a no brainer- Edge is already a more decorated athlete than the Undertaker.

Wow, this whole "it's not Wrestlemania, so Undertaker won't win" agrument is complete BS. I'm not against your opinion and I'm not bashing you because you're voting Edge, but I am going to bash this ridiculous reasoning that both you and Will have mentioned.

So apparently Undertaker has never won a match away from Wrestlemania. How can you overlook the fact that Undertaker has beaten Edge at 3 different PPVs, like Sam clearly pointed out. Will also mentioned that we can ignore the Wrestlemania meeting between these two since it was expected for Undertaker to win, but can't we do the same thing with the match that he has refered to so often, in the TLC match at ONS? I mean, that is Edge's specialty match so shouldn't it of been expected for him to win there?

*Side note: atleast in Undertaker's specialty match of Wrestlemania he doesn't lose, unlike Edge who lost to John Cena in a TLC match.

Honestly, this is the argument that I have heard the most in this thread and I can't believe people on here are actually taken by it. If you want to play it like that, then this match isn't a gimmick match so Edge won't win and the Undertaker hasn't been beaten up and attacked after his match with Benoit so Edge won't have the opportunity to come and strike when he's down so Edge won't win.

 

[jpfizzle]

Wow, this whole "it's not Wrestlemania, so Undertaker won't win" agrument is complete BS. I'm not against your opinion and I'm not bashing you because you're voting Edge, but I am going to bash this ridiculous reasoning that both you and Will have mentioned.

So apparently Undertaker has never won a match away from Wrestlemania. How can you overlook the fact that Undertaker has beaten Edge at 3 different PPVs, like Sam clearly pointed out. Will also mentioned that we can ignore the Wrestlemania meeting between these two since it was expected for Undertaker to win, but can't we do the same thing with the match that he has refered to so often, in the TLC match at ONS? I mean, that is Edge's specialty match so shouldn't it of been expected for him to win there?

*Side note: atleast in Undertaker's specialty match of Wrestlemania he doesn't lose, unlike Edge who lost to John Cena in a TLC match.

Honestly, this is the argument that I have heard the most in this thread and I can't believe people on here are actually taken by it. If you want to play it like that, then this match isn't a gimmick match so Edge won't win and the Undertaker hasn't been beaten up and attacked after his match with Benoit so Edge won't have the opportunity to come and strike when he's down so Edge won't win.

Hey buddy feel free to bash my opinions! It's what the forums are here for, wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed.

So anyhow, the reason that the point that Undertaker will only win if it was Wrestlemania has come up so often is because it's a simple way of explaining the following.

Firstly, we need to decide Undertakers prime, we are all witnessing Edge in his prime and at the moment I feel that he is performing better and winning more matches than Undertaker has done in his whole career. If you count Undertakers prime as from around 1990 - 1997 he was no way as good as Edge. If you count Undertakers prime as 1997 to circa 2001 he was Stone Cold Steve Austins lackey. Edge at the moment is no ones lackey, not even the Undertaker, whilst on RAW Randy Orton is still not as big as Triple H. My point being that for Edge to shine as much as he is with the roster as stacked as it is is quite amazing. Finally if you count Undertakers prime anytime from about 2001 to the present day, then yeah, Undertaker is fantastic, but so he should be, he's off TV more than any other active wrestler, even Goldust could rival him for time on TV this year, Ok that's an exaggeration but my point being is that Edge as he is today is better than the Undertaker in any form.

I honestly feel the only argument Undertakers fans have is that Undertaker has stayed in the main event longer than Edge, but in ten years time that will be a different story.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I honestly feel the only argument Undertakers fans have is that Undertaker has stayed in the main event longer than Edge, but in ten years time that will be a different story.

Or the frankly bulletproof argument that The Undertaker's prime is in his most recent stint, and it overlapped in Edge's prime and, in their primes, The Undertaker absolutely dominated Edge in every match they had. There's always that one.

I'm honestly amazed The Undertaker is behind on this one. Maybe he's such an obvious choice that many people who have tried to vote for him have spontaneously combusted before they could.

 

[simpsons_fanatic742]

Hey buddy feel free to bash my opinions! It's what the forums are here for, wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed.

So anyhow, the reason that the point that Undertaker will only win if it was Wrestlemania has come up so often is because it's a simple way of explaining the following.

Firstly, we need to decide Undertakers prime, we are all witnessing Edge in his prime and at the moment I feel that he is performing better and winning more matches than Undertaker has done in his whole career. If you count Undertakers prime as from around 1990 - 1997 he was no way as good as Edge. If you count Undertakers prime as 1997 to circa 2001 he was Stone Cold Steve Austins lackey. Edge at the moment is no ones lackey, not even the Undertaker, whilst on RAW Randy Orton is still not as big as Triple H. My point being that for Edge to shine as much as he is with the roster as stacked as it is is quite amazing. Finally if you count Undertakers prime anytime from about 2001 to the present day, then yeah, Undertaker is fantastic, but so he should be, he's off TV more than any other active wrestler, even Goldust could rival him for time on TV this year, Ok that's an exaggeration but my point being is that Edge as he is today is better than the Undertaker in any form.

I honestly feel the only argument Undertakers fans have is that Undertaker has stayed in the main event longer than Edge, but in ten years time that will be a different story.

I'm pretty new to this whole argument thing, especially in this tournament, but here it goes.

While I can agree that Undertaker, recently, has taken off some time here and there, I don't really see how it affects this matchup since it's a kayfabe tournament.

As for Undertaker's prime, even I can't quite pick which one it truly is, but I believe that even further cements his status in the WWE. If we can't decide on a prime for the Undertaker that clearly shows that he has been extremely relevant throughout his whole career and there was no downpoint for him. As for Edge, his prime is now and that is clear because he has not been main-event player his whole career.

When you say that Undertaker was Austin's lackey I don't see it that way. I saw it as Undertaker helping Austin go over with the fans and to help him stay over as the face of the company. Austin was fghting the leader of the biggest heel stable at the time, so it was essential to have him go over in that fued. I find it similar to Edge and Jeff Hardy. Jeff Hardy has been a thorn in the side of Edge and Hardy got his biggest push of his career when he gained wins over Edge. It's kind of the same way as how Undertaker was used to keep Austin elevated on the roster.

It's true that the WWE has a stacked roster now, but the difference is that they are spread across 3 brands now. When Undertaker was feuding for the belt, it was on one show with everyone on it. They were all fighting for one belt and they didn't have the luxury of going to another brand and fighting for their title. They had to insert themselves in an ongoing fued.

I believe that the argument for Undertaker over Edge is that he has had a clear advantage over him throughout their careers. He has controlled Edge during the ministry days and dominated him in their most recent feud. The thinking that Edge is going to main-event the WWE for 10 more years is all well and good, but he hasn't done so yet so it can't be attributed to this match.

 

[jpfizzle]

Or the frankly bulletproof argument that The Undertaker's prime is in his most recent stint, and it overlapped in Edge's prime and, in their primes, The Undertaker absolutely dominated Edge in every match they had. There's always that one.

I'm honestly amazed The Undertaker is behind on this one. Maybe he's such an obvious choice that many people who have tried to vote for him have spontaneously combusted before they could.

I honestly and respectfully disagree with you, I think Edge came out of that feud looking great, he proved to me then that he could hang with the main eventers. So you feel that this is Undertakers prime, even though he can't wrestle for more than say 3 months at a time before having to have months of time off due to being so beat up? Undertaker is at the tail end of his career, if it took him this long to get this good then Edge has an even brighter future to look forward too.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I honestly and respectfully disagree with you, I think Edge came out of that feud looking great, he proved to me then that he could hang with the main eventers.

Hang? Sure. Edge is great. I love Edge. Why, I'd say he's in my top three wrestlers right now, especially after that spectacular match he had with JoMo.

Unfortunately, winning is another matter entirely.

So you feel that this is Undertakers prime, even though he can't wrestle for more than say 3 months at a time before having to have months of time off due to being so beat up?

He still kicked the crap out of Edge. If there's a time in his career that The Undertaker was better and more dominant, then Edge is triply screwed.

Undertaker is at the tail end of his career, if it took him this long to get this good then Edge has an even brighter future to look forward too.

Unluckily, the tournament isn't based on hypothetical futures. And yes, I do like to think of The Undertaker as a fine wine.