Fourth Round: Hell in a Cell - The Undertaker vs. Bill Goldberg

[Big Nick Dudley]

Thank You, Underking, for actually making me WANT to vote for Goldberg. You have actually made me turn against Taker in this, good job. Underking, for the love of Christ, stop posting. If you want Taker to win, you need to stop. You are actually hurting his chances.

After reading everything in this thread, I am inclined to go with Goldberg (My mind isn't changed easily). Taker has a sketchy record in HIAC matches, which was already playing against him before I read what I have read. But I'm still not completely sold.

Taker is big and physical, but so is Goldberg. Taker is agile for being as big as he is, but so is Goldberg. Taker usually has the intimidation factor going for him, but as a few of you have said, no one intimidates Goldberg. But Undertaker, while not having a great record in HIAC matches, has the experience (Goldberg was never in a HIAC match).

But in all honesty, having experience in this match isn't as important as you might think. Sure, it's a brutal environment, but it's not so much different from a no hold barred, or hardcore match. The cage can be used as a weapon, that's the only difference. Outside interference is unlikely (not impossible, obviously), but neither one of these guys seem to rely on anyone else to pick up a win, so that's a non factor. And I don't see Taker throwing Goldberg off the top of the cage, nor do I see Goldberg doing so to Taker. Also, I don't like to look at Taker's losses in HIAC during his "BikerTaker" days. He jobbed to a lot of people at that time.

This one is just too close to call, as of now.

 

[Ferbian]

Yeah that's why when I put Goldberg not being able to get a pin on Hulk with both and Taker using one put him out FACT. As for the Last Ride and Choke SLam at this point they are the in between of a finisher and a signature depends on the person. The has no chance just really killed for me your argument no chance thats exactly what wrestling mostly all about the underdog. No Chacge means incredibly high chance see Sheamus for that.

As it's already been said, Undertaker tombstoned him on a chair, therefore, he cheated to get a victory, Goldberg didn't cheat to get to that point, and Goldberg has pinned Hogan Clean before, something undertaker can never brag about, the first time, Flair interfered, the second time (2002, an out of his prime Hogan) Vince McMahon interfered, causing a distraction, Hogan beating on Vince gave Undertaker the chance to chokeslam Hogan.

Plus you're telling me Lex Luger and Buff Bagwell can beat Berg but Taker can't that some fucked up shit.

In a no disqualification tag team match yes, where a "fan" interfered, Goldberg has NEVER been put down clean in his prime, as far as I recall, something Undertaker can't brag about at all.

So yeah that both killed and helped my argument. You know what screw it hope the blind marks vote for Taker. Fucking people who retire early.

Ha! you see!? you said it yourself, only a "blind mark" would vote for Undertaker in this match, everybody who isn't a blind mark of Undertaker knows Goldberg will eat Undertaker for breakfast and spit him out.

To all you "blind marks" please, don't follow vote for Undertaker just because you love him, realize, that Goldberg is the right choice.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

This is one of these matches where I'm really not sure if I'm going to vote or not because it's just so close. I'm a much bigger fan of The Undertaker than I am of Goldberg, but I also know how huge Goldberg was at one time.

I've read where some feel that Goldberg would just be like Lesnar. I don't really buy into the whole "Lesnar beat Taker. Goldberg beat Lesnar, hence Goldberg would beat Taker" logic. It's always been said that anybody can beat anybody on any given night. Also, I think too many people are insinuating that Lesnar completely dominated The Undertaker in their HIAC match when, in fact, it was quite a close match. I watched it last night, both gave as good as they got with Lesnar managing to come out on top. It wasn't some one sided domination by any stretch.

The Undertaker does have far more gimmick match experience than Goldberg. With the exception of Brock Lesnar at HIAC, I can't think of a one on one gimmick match in which the Undertaker lost without some sort of outside interference from someone. It was exceedingly rare for such a thing to happen. I admit that I'm leaning towards Taker, but it's possible that my mind could be changed.

 

[thepalaceprince]

I hate goldberg with a passion. hes an overrated piece of crap that built up some pointless streak by beating jobbers every week but the fact of the matter is goldberg for his entire career was booked to be an absolutely unstoppable force. He took on evolution by himself for fucks sake! And as its been mentioned lesnar threw taker around like a ragdoll and goldberg was able to beat lesnar so I gotta give my vote to goldberg

 

[The Brain]

Kayfabe I can see either one getting the win here. Since it’s pretty much a toss up kayfabe I’m going with the one I like better and the one I think deserves it more which is Undertaker. It’s not even so much that I like Taker better, but I really don’t like Goldberg. I’m not sure if there’s ever been anyone more overrated. This guy is a one year wonder. He’s a barely a blip on the radar of wrestling history and he’s treated like a legend.

Goldberg got a push because he looked like Steve Austin. Bischoff is known for trying to duplicate WWE stars such as Andre the Giant with The Giant and The Ultimate Warrior with the Renegade. In 1997 Austin was the hottest thing going and Goldberg got a break because he resembled Austin. He had the goatee, the shaved head, and the black trunks and black boots which Bischoff previously told Austin were not marketable before firing him. His winning streak was a joke. Most of his wins were against guys like Jerry Flynn, Scotty Riggs, and Barry Darsow. It’s amazing how guys like that got title shots on a roster that included Sting, Randy Savage, Lex Luger, and Ric Flair among many other big names. I’m not any more impressed with this streak than I am with Tatanka being undefeated for two years in the WWF.

Most of the guys in this tournament were stars for years. Take out 1998 and what is Goldberg? Nothing. Not only that, but he wasn’t even as good as he was made out to be back then. He was sloppy in the ring and thought he was bigger than the business after one good year. I’ll take the guy who has been a main eventer for the better part of twenty years. Goldberg’s year of squash matches over jobbers doesn’t impress me. Goldberg actually has an advantage because he had such a short prime. Doesn’t that seem backwards? The only way Goldberg stands a chance is because he was booked as unstoppable during his prime which was about one year. For those of you who look at wrestlers being able to draw and produce ratings, haven’t you noticed it was when Goldberg was on top of WCW that the WWF finally started winning the ratings war?

I have gone against my normal philosophy with this post. Normally I encourage people to talk up their guy instead of put down the other guy. I don’t know that I’ve convinced anyone to vote for Taker and that’s fine. I just really have a disdain for Goldberg and wanted to vent some of my frustrations about him. There are actually more reasons I dislike Goldberg, but I’ll leave it at that for now. Vote for the guy who has been a top star since before most of you can even remember instead of the guy who had one good year.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I voted Goldberg simply due to the fact that he's my all-time favorite.

Either guy can easily win though. However, the Lesnar HIAC needs to be noted that Undertaker wrestled with a broken arm, and Lesnar had Heyman. And as mentioned, it wasn't a completely one-sided match.

I could certainly respect the Undertaker winning this match, and even the entire thing, I just voted for Goldberg because he's the reason I ever watched wrestling.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Unless this is Wrestlemania...Goldberg goes over here. Think about situations where Taker has fought big guys in less than Wrestlemania type environments. I am not using any statistics to back this claim, but Taker usually loses the first encounter.

And Goldberg in his prime was bigger than Taker in his prime. Yeah, I said it.

 

[Tastycles]

This is so Goldberg it is untrue. Taker has an abysmal record inside the cell when you think that it is supposed to be his signature match. He's lost to Lesnar and Batista in there, both of whom have the power and application of Goldberg, but without as much of the raw capability to win, put simply. I don't care that Taker's been in 10 of these matches, the only wrestlers that are anything like Goldberg that have faced him in there have beaten him, and that is the real indicator.

 

[mo2018]

Simple Undertaker. It's his turf, his playground, the odds are against Goldberg. But goldberg did defy the odds a lot but Undertaker barely lost hell in a cell matches. Close one but Taker wins.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Simple Undertaker. It's his turf, his playground, the odds are against Goldberg. But goldberg did defy the odds a lot but Undertaker barely lost hell in a cell matches. Close one but Taker wins.

This is simply not true. SOmeone posted it earlier, Taker was something like 5-4 in Hell in the Cell matches, and he lost a match to Brock Lesnar and batista, the two closest things to Goldberg that the Undertaker ever faced in the cell.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Again, voted Goldberg, okay with either winning.

Does anybody remember the 2 popularly mentioned Cell matches? Those being Batista and Lesnar?

The Undertaker had a broken arm vs Lesnar, who had help from Paul Heyman.

The Undertaker only lost the Batista match because of Edge's interference.

What indication, either way, did those matches give to us? Nothing.

 

[future admin]

Undertaker may not have a very good record in HIAC, but he is one HIAC Legend. He has alot of experience in it.
Undertaker FTW

 

[chelseafc4ever]

for me undertaker wins this reasonably comfortably
first of all wresting is scripted so the point of goldberg winning 170 odd matches in a row just means he was a selfish cunt who wouldnt let others win unlike undertaker who often will lose to younger and new talents to raise their reputation. another point exerience IS important of course it is and also people are saying lesnar and batista beat undertaker in hell in a cell yes they did but batista was seconds away from losing until egde interfered and also he fought lesnar with a broken hand but again this is an example of undertaker losing to young talent unlike goldberg. another thing is people are saying spear and jackhammer and that would win it, what you have to remember is undertaker has possible the highest enduance levels out of anyone ever in wrestling so i highly doubt it would be that easy also someone taker has fought and beat numerous times who is bigger than goldberg would be kane and don't bother saying thats not true because before kane tore his bicep he was massive and his arms were much bigger than goldbergs so for me undertaker would win this one.