New York Region, Third Round: First Blood: (2) Undertaker vs. (7) Batista

[klunderbunker]

The following contest is a third round match in the New York Region.

This match takes place in Madison Square Garden, New York City, New York.

It is a First Blood Match.

Rules: In this contest there are no disqualifications or count-outs. The match is won by making the other wrestler bleed. This must be a significant amount of blood and not just a small cut.

#2 Undertaker

Vs.

#7 Batista

This contest is one fall with a 30 minute time limit. The match will take place in a 16 x 16 ring with no ramp leading to it. Any traditional managers for either competitor will be allowed at ringside.

As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.

The most votes in the voting period wins and in the case of a tie, the most written votes wins. There is one written vote per user, meaning if a poster make ten posts saying Bret should win that will count as a single vote. In the event of a second tie, both men are ELIMINATED, no questions asked. Only winners advance.

Voting will open in 48 hours and will be open for five days and all posts must be non-spam. You may use the 48 hours to present your cases as to why either competitor should/should not win.​

 

[Tastycles]

Undertaker would win this match. I'm sure he has bled, but I can't really remember it ever happening. Batista isn't Ric Flair when it comes to blood, but he's booked as a mortal, which is already putting it at a disadvantage. Undertaker got the more high profile of wins in their millions of matches in 2007, so with that in mind, I think this is a certain Undertaker win.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Batista has in ring chemistry only with three men: Triple H, John Cena and of course The Undertaker. These two man had a great feud with very memorable matches: single, cage, last man standing and even a hell in a cell. That being said, even if I don't like very much Batista it is a tough one to call.

WWE build these two man in their feud as equals, at the end of the feud there wasn't a clear winner (due to the interference of Edge, the ties on LSM and cage match and both had one victory on the other). It's pretty difficult to pick a winner, I don't know how many times we have seen Taker and Batista bleed, I know it's very few times, but I think it is more common on Batista.

Either way, if I remember correctly, in their hell in a cell match, Taker was dominating and made Batista bleed first. Taker has the knowledge in this kind of matches, he can be pretty brutal, while Batista only use his stenght and his brain.

My vote goes for Taker since he has been involved in so many gimmicked matches that involved bleeding.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Undertaker has bled a lot more times than Batista has and Batista has come out victorious more often even though pinfalls or submissions don't count. Undertaker bled like a stuck pig by Lesnar's chair shots and steel steps. The Undertaker lost a First Blood match to Mr. Anderson and I don't care that MVP actually was the one who hit him. Undertaker still bled. I'm going with the guy who isn't average in gimmick matches. Batista wins.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

In terms of kayfabe, there isn't a clear winner here. From what I can find, Batista has never been in a First Blood match. Taker has won a First Blood match, but lost two of them. However, I'll take any experience over zero. Also, Taker has beaten Batista in one-on-one matches more often than Batista has beaten Taker.

I don't really care for Batista, never have. I don't think he's a great in-ring competitor, and The Undertaker has put on better matches over the years. I'm going Taker here.

 

[PsychoBlack]

This would be fucking awesome. These two would beat the shit out of each other for close to thirty minutes before blood began to trickle down one of their heads. I say that Undertaker wins it because i just think of him as more sadistic , but in this match setting I wouldn't be upset if Batista beat him.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

This could be a really good match. Batista and Undertaker always worked well together, but in a First Blood match, I have to give the advantage to the guy who is more evil, sadistic and experienced in this type of match.

Batista could hit 40 powerbombs on Undertaker, it wouldnt matter. All The Deadman would need to do is split Big Dave open, and much more of his offense is based around striking the face. Undertaker would win this one by ripping off the turnbuckle pad, dropping Batista face first onto the exposed steel with Snake Eyes and then bouncing of the ropes, connecting with a sickening chair shot to the skull, instead of the usual big boot.

Big Dave would bleed. Undertaker would win

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Being sadistic and Batista having less experience doesn't mean shit to me. It's not like Batista is going to have a brain freeze wondering how to make Undertaker bleed. Batista can get nasty whenever he pleases. Ask Cena, Orton, HHH, HBK, and basically every top guy he has faced. Undertaker is average in gimmick matches. Batista isn't. He will find a way to win.

 

[Shocky]

The Undertaker is in legit danger of being eliminated very early. This feud was about as even as it got. I can't recall both men bleeding with any frequency, if at all during this feud.

Both men have made many, many men bleed. The Undertaker is a sadistic, sick fuck. Look at the list of men he's faced, and chances are, he's left them in a pool of blood at some point or another. The Undertaker has bleed with some frequency over his career, losing two First Blood matches.

Big Dave has demolished men in his career. He absolutely dominated Triple H and made him bleed nearly ever time they had a match with one another. Batista has the killer instinct to win this match.

I need to be persuaded.

 

[Big Sexy]

The match type doesn't really favor either man so I'll go with the guy who had more success during their feuds and that is the Undertaker. Taker and Batista fought 5 times to pin fall finishes with Taker winning 3 of them. Batista's first win came in a singles match at Cyber Sunday in 2007 which he won clean. His second win came in a HIAC match but Taker was actually about to win that math until Edge interfered and speared him. Taker's first win came on the biggest stage of them all at Wrestlemania 23. He also had a couple gimmick match wins over him in 2009. One was in a no DQ match on Smackdown and the other was in a chairs match at TLC. Taker has been the better man between the two in their feuds and that is why he goes over here.

 

[Coco]

He also had a couple gimmick match wins over him in 2009.

You mean a single win over Batista in 2009. A match which Batista won before the decision was unfairly reversed. Not something Batista will have to worry about here. When Batista wins this match, it won't be like the chairs match where Taker gets another chance to even the score. The first decision will stand as there are no holds barred in this setting. This isn't a nonsensical chairs match. Batista gets his hand raised.

These men are dead even in one on one matches. But if we take out reversed decisions due to someone not playing by the rules, not a factor here, Batista is 3-1 against Taker. This is clear as day. Batista till the cows come home, folks.

Nothing else needs to be said here. I'm sure plenty more will be said though because people have some weird fetish for Taker, more to do with his gimmick than any inherent skill. But that fetish doesn't change the facts. Batista is and will always be Undertaker's better.

 

[Big Sexy]

You mean a single win over Batista in 2009. A match which Batista won before the decision was unfairly reversed. Not something Batista will have to worry about here. When Batista wins this match, it won't be like the chairs match where Taker gets another chance to even the score. The first decision will stand as there are no holds barred in this setting. This isn't a nonsensical chairs match. Batista gets his hand raised.

These men are dead even in one on one matches. But if we take out reversed decisions due to someone not playing by the rules, not a factor here, Batista is 3-1 against Taker. This is clear as day. Batista till the cows come home, folks.

Nothing else needs to be said here. I'm sure plenty more will be said though because people have some weird fetish for Taker, more to do with his gimmick than any inherent skill. But that fetish doesn't change the facts. Batista is and will always be Undertaker's better.

So Taker has a somewhat tainted win in the chairs match. Batista also has a somewhat tainted win in the HIAC match. I highly doubt Edge will be there to spear Taker in this match. I have no clue where you are coming up with this 3-1 record for Batista because the only times he has pinned Taker one on one were at Cyber Sunday 2007 and in the HIAC. And like I said, if Taker's chairs match victory is tainted then so is Batista's HIAC victory. That leaves three non tainted finishes between the two with Taker holding a 2-1 record. I'll take a win at Wrestlemania and a win in a no DQ match over a win at Cyber Sunday.

 

[Coco]

So Taker has a somewhat tainted win in the chairs match. Batista also has a somewhat tainted win in the HIAC match. I highly doubt Edge will be there to spear Taker in this match. I have no clue where you are coming up with this 3-1 record for Batista because the only times he has pinned Taker one on one were at Cyber Sunday 2007 and in the HIAC. And like I said, if Taker's chairs match victory is tainted then so is Batista's HIAC victory. That leaves three non tainted finishes between the two with Taker holding a 2-1 record. I'll take a win at Wrestlemania and a win in a no DQ match over a win at Cyber Sunday.

Okay, I forgot the No DQ match from SmackDown. But now that I've refreshed my memory, if you're going to discount HIAC because Edge interfered, you have to discount No DQ from SmackDown because Shawn Michaels interfered. Simple as. So we have Mania and Cyber Sunday canceling one another out and the deciding chair match saw Batista win first. Considering there'd be no reversed decision in this match, that first win for Batista in the chair match is enough for me to give him the edge here.

It's still Batista's match no matter which way you slice the past. Your double standard about HIAC and the No DQ match doesn't hold up and the people will recognize it.

Long Live Dave Batista! Long Live The Animal!

 

[Big Sexy]

Basically all you're pointing out is that Taker and Batista in one on one gimmick matches have never had a legitimate clean finish. In non gimmick matches they each have one and I'll take a Mania win over a Cyber Sunday win any day. Let's also not forget the Elimination Chamber where Taker and Batista started the match and finished it with Taker coming out on top.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Taker bleeds more than anyone that doesn't have the name Flair or Hogan. Heck, Taker bleeds the hard way a lot.

Batista, in his prime, is definitely taking out an Undertaker in a first blood match during HIS prime. Taker bleeds all the time...and Taker often loses these kind of matches only to win a matchup at a later time.

Batista wins here, if not because Taker bleeds a lot...then because he has epic pyro.

 

[Coco]

I'll take a Mania win over a Cyber Sunday win any day.

What the fuck does that even mean? In kayfabe land, is a win at Mania somehow harder to gain than any other win? This makes a grand total of zero sense.

Let's also not forget the Elimination Chamber where Taker and Batista started the match and finished it with Taker coming out on top.

Let's also not forget that there were four other guys in that match laying offense into Taker and Batista for the duration. You can't attribute Taker's win over Batista solely to the efforts of Taker. It proves nothing in this setting.

Your arguments for Taker are rather feeble. Meanwhile, Batista beat Taker one on one in a gimmick match before the decision was reversed (something which won't happen here) and you have yet to establish why that has no baring here. Because you can't.

Vote Batista, people.

 

[Big Sexy]

What the fuck does that even mean? In kayfabe land, is a win at Mania somehow harder to gain than any other win? This makes a grand total of zero sense.

Yes it is harder to get. Wrsetlemania is the Super Bowl of wrestling, it's when everyone makes sure they are at their absolute best. It's like comparing a post season NFL game to a regular season one.

Let's also not forget that there were four other guys in that match laying offense into Taker and Batista for the duration. You can't attribute Taker's win over Batista solely to the efforts of Taker. It proves nothing in this setting.

There were others in the match but both men started the match and finished it as the final two and Taker came out on top.

Your arguments for Taker are rather feeble. Meanwhile, Batista beat Taker one on one in a gimmick match before the decision was reversed (something which won't happen here) and you have yet to establish why that has no baring here. Because you can't.

Taker had Batista beat in the HIAC match until Edge came in and speared Taker. I'm not 100% positive but I believe that a chairs match isn't like other weapons matches where anything goes, it just means that chairs are legal. Batista causing the ref bump and using the low blow would then be considered illegal in that match. I'm sure Taker in a match with no rules would be prepared for any underhanded tactics like that. After the decision was reversed in the chairs match and it was restarted, Taker got the one on one win.

Vote Batista, people.

Scoreboard bitch.

 

[Coco]

Yes it is harder to get. Wrsetlemania is the Super Bowl of wrestling, it's when everyone makes sure they are at their absolute best. It's like comparing a post season NFL game to a regular season one.

Read: The Undertaker only really tries once a year.

There were others in the match but both men started the match and finished it as the final two and Taker came out on top.

Those matches are also irrelevant.

I'm sure Taker in a match with no rules would be prepared for any underhanded tactics like that.

Read: Undertaker frequently comes into matches unprepared for every possibility.

Scoreboard bitch.

People are morons. Noted.

Was that post supposed to help your guy? 'Cause it's not doing much for me.

Vote with your head. Vote Batista, people.

 

[Big Sexy]

I think people would much rather vote for an all time great superstar over an overrated, roided up guy like Batista. The Undertaker near the end of his 20 year career had a better one on one record then Batista who was in his prime and he had that better record in both regular and gimmick matches. That"s enough to give him the win.

 

[Remix]

What the fuck does that even mean? In kayfabe land, is a win at Mania somehow harder to gain than any other win? This makes a grand total of zero sense.

Hasn't that been Undertaker's storyline going into Wrestlemania for the last three years?

As for this match... screw it, I'm voting Batista. As Coco has so deftly pointed out, their scores come out even when you compare clean wins, with most finishes being dirty in some way. However, this match is one that puts 'Taker at a disadvantage against the Animal. If 'Taker has one thing over Baista it's his experience and the moves he's adopted from MMA. However, experience isn't going to prevent a shairshot from busting him open, and all the chokes in the world aren't going to help him here.

Batista is stronger, hits harder and as we've seen before he can be as sadistic and brutal as he needs to to win. Vote for The Animal.

 

[Coco]

I think people would much rather vote for an all time great superstar over an overrated, roided up guy like Batista.

When the other side of this coin is The Undertaker, I'm not sure the word "overrated" is one you want to bandy about. Undertaker spent most of his career using his unique gimmick to get people to overlook his plodding, monotonous ring work. Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle doing their respective "things" with Taker may have gotten most people to forget, but the mediocrity Taker has spent most of his career toiling in hasn't slipped my mind.

Somebody care to explain to me why nobody ever calls Taker out for being overrated? Anybody. Please.

 

[Remix]

I think people would much rather vote for an all time great superstar over an overrated, roided up guy like Batista.

I'd rather people vote for the guy who would and should win this, and that's Batista. Especially when 'Taker's incredably overrated. He's very good, especially for someone as big as he is. But he's nowhere near as good as he's cracked up to be. Oh, and don't attempt to say that Batista's any more chemically altered than 'Taker. Lets ignore that 'Taker came from a time when even the midgets took steriods, and if 'Taker isn't addicted to painkillers I'll eat my hat.

The Undertaker near the end of his 20 year career had a better one on one record then Batista who was in his prime and he had that better record in both regular and gimmick matches.

Taker's gimmick match performance isn't that great actually. He's 1-2 in first blood matches, roughly 50-50 in HIAC matches 0-5 in Buried Alive matches. Just because he's been in a lot if them doesn't mean he's got a great record in them. In fact his record's pretty shit if we're honest.

That's enough to give him the win.

Quite the opposite infact.

 

[hatehabsforever]

This one is intriguing, as Batista has given Taker all he can handle in the past. But in the end, I simply could not vote for a guy like Batista to defeat a guy like the Undertaker. Batista is an animal, but Taker is still the Deadman. The Undertaker still is a tough son of a gun, and in the end, would have more stamina and resilience than Big Dave would. Taker does not have a tendency to bleed as a general rule of thumb, but he certainly does have a history of producing blood in the past, sometimes inexplicably so, such as with his finishing maneuver. Look for plenty of physicality here, but in the end, a victory for the star of the 2/21/11 vignettes.

 

[Remix]

This one is intriguing, as Batista has given Taker all he can handle in the past. But in the end, I simply could not vote for a guy like Batista to defeat a guy like the Undertaker.

Cyber Sunday '07. Hell in a Cell '09. Batista can beat The Undertaker one on one, just like he would here.

Batista is an animal, but Taker is still the Deadman.

Nicknames matter in a first blood match?

The Undertaker still is a tough son of a gun, and in the end, would have more stamina and resilience than Big Dave would.

Is his stamina is going to make his forehead inpenetrable?

Him losing to Kennedy says otherwise. Sure MVP struck the blow that caused the bleed, but neither of those guys is anywhere near the same league as Batista.

Taker does not have a tendency to bleed as a general rule of thumb,

Rey Mysterio says that it doesn't take more than a seated senton to make 'Taker bleed.

[YOUTUBE]Py4PUhTkoME[/YOUTUBE]

but he certainly does have a history of producing blood in the past,

So does Batista. Your point is irrelevent.

sometimes inexplicably so, such as with his finishing maneuver.

does a dribbling of blood REALLY count as significant. Batista doesn't need blood that makes no sence if he's got a chair in his hand and his opponent dazed and about to lose conciousness.

Look for plenty of physicality here, but in the end, a victory for the star of the 2/21/11 vignettes.

The winner won't be 'Taker, but the man who walks alone inside a pit of anger. Vote Batista.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'd rather people vote for the guy who would and should win this, and that's Batista. Especially when 'Taker's incredably overrated. He's very good, especially for someone as big as he is. But he's nowhere near as good as he's cracked up to be. Oh, and don't attempt to say that Batista's any more chemically altered than 'Taker. Lets ignore that 'Taker came from a time when even the midgets took steriods, and if 'Taker isn't addicted to painkillers I'll eat my hat.

And why exactly should Batista win this?

Taker's gimmick match performance isn't that great actually. He's 1-2 in first blood matches, roughly 50-50 in HIAC matches 0-5 in Buried Alive matches. Just because he's been in a lot if them doesn't mean he's got a great record in them. In fact his record's pretty shit if we're honest.

I couldn't give a fuck less about his overall gimmick match performances. He is 3-2 against Batista in one on one matches and he's 2-1 against him in those that were gimmick matches.