Semi-Finals: Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker

[Jack-Hammer]

Yeah, I'm just not buying into the whole "he only beat him at WrestleMania" defense for HBK. I've always liked HBK and I understand that some fans do prefer him over Taker and that's all well and good. But if you wanna vote for HBK just 'cuz he's your favorite wrestler, then by all means do so. These attempts at making at rationalizing why HBK should go over The Undertaker, however, are just really weak.

This is a match that we don't have to speculate about, we don't have to compare accomplishments, we don't have to argue who has faced tougher competition, we don't have to compare who has had the better feuds. We've seen both of these two give it their all in what might possibly be the two greatest matches of this decade and The Undertaker went over. He went over cleanly and he went over decisively. There's not one credible argument that can be put up as to why Taker couldn't do the exact same thing if the matches had taken place on Raw, Smackdown, any WWE ppv or even at a house show.

 

[Coco]

You've said it isn't an issue, the other said it was a bad analogy, yet neither really explains why. If we're looking at past history - The Undertaker was NEVER going to lose at WM and you're stupid if you think otherwise. Regardless of anything else, no matter WHAT Shawn did, he wasn't going to win. When the 2 had matches OUTSIDE of this setting, there was outside interferences. Both of these things were decided before the match, so when someone uses one I'm going to use the other. The Undertaker didn't beat Shawn at WM because he's the better wrestler, he beat him because it's WM, and, last year, because Shawn was retiring.

It's pro-wrestling. It's all decided before the match.

Why shouldn't we be using those kayfabe results to decide the winner in this tournament? It's far more objective than a Shawn mark ranting and raving about who's better and considering there were gimmick rounds, it makes sense that such things are the basis of votes. Interference is kayfabe. Shawn wanting retire and Taker having no chance of losing at Mania are not. Thus, they don't matter in that discussion.

The facts (in kayfave):
-Taker can beat Michaels without cheating
-Michaels can't do the same

We don't need to discuss this any further, but go on: Keep pretending you have a good reason to vote for Michaels.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It's pro-wrestling. It's all decided before the match.

Why shouldn't we be using those kayfabe results to decide the winner in this tournament? It's far more objective than a Shawn mark ranting and raving about who's better and considering there were gimmick rounds, it makes sense that such things are the basis of votes. Interference is kayfabe. Shawn wanting retire and Taker having no chance of losing at Mania are not. Thus, they don't matter in that discussion.

The facts (in kayfave):
-Taker can beat Michaels without cheating
-Michaels can't do the same

We don't need to discuss this any further, but go on: Keep pretending you have a good reason to vote for Michaels.

When was it decided we have to vote in a kayfabe way? There are threads for people 'pleaing' for that to be the case, but as far as I'm aware, we can vote using whatever criteria we like - hell I know some people definitely have with some of the stupid results. Even the person running the tournament says "It can be whatever the voter wants. Up to them." Meaning I could vote for Shawn for any reason from his left eyebrow to his ring attire and it be a legit reason to vote Shawn.

Now that's been explained, if people believe Shawn is the better wrestler, which he is, they can vote for him. Him losing to The Undertaker at Wrestlemania, is, what? Nothing more than The Undertaker adding some big names to his list. The streak will never end - is The Undertaker better than everyone he's beaten? Of course not, so why is it such a big deal here? Because that's the ONLY thing people have.

 

[Coco]

When was it decided we have to vote in a kayfabe way? There are threads for people 'pleaing' for that to be the case, but as far as I'm aware, we can vote using whatever criteria we like - hell I know some people definitely have with some of the stupid results. Even the person running the tournament says "It can be whatever the voter wants. Up to them." Meaning I could vote for Shawn for any reason from his left eyebrow to his ring attire and it be a legit reason to vote Shawn.

Eyebrows don't win Ironman matches. Especially not left eyebrows.

Now that's been explained, if people believe Shawn is the better wrestler, which he is, they can vote for him.

Subjective and presented with no evidence. You lost me.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Eyebrows don't win Ironman matches. Especially not left eyebrows.

Ah but you haven't seen the power of SHAWN'S left eyebrow.

Subjective and presented with no evidence. You lost me.

I'm not going to repeat myself a million times on here . Especially seeings as you completely ignored everything I said regarding this NOT being a kayfabe tournament, because it completely breaks down your "OMG KAYFABEZZ" argument.

Sure, there will be people who enjoy watching The Undertaker more, but they'll vote for him anyway. I've yet to see The Undertaker do something that Shawn can not. Aside from come back from the dead and all that

 

[I.R.S was ace]

I don't like HBK and feel he is vastly overated but the simple fact of the matter he was unbeaten against Undertaker until Wrestlemania XV. Now whilst Undertaker has won the last two matches HBK has a winning record against Undertaker so i will reluctantly vote for HBK.

 

[gd]

Michaels is actually 3-2 against Taker, but of those wins I think all of them were gimmicky/involved intereference. Not a good sign for HBK. Him losing to Taker at Wrestlemania 2 years in a row obviously doesn't help either. I know, crazy to think that losing to a guy you're facing doesn't help you.

Anyway, not a huge fan of either of these guys, but Taker basically smashed Shawn every chance he got. It'd be a damn fine match, that's for sure. However, I can't see Shawn Michaels winning anything here, except for Becca's heart.

 

[Teddy Irving]

right people are using the whole Undertaker won the last two matchs these two have had, but lets not forget these matchs were at WM. Undertakers streak was one of the reasons he won. Now people can say HBK only won his matchs against taker because of interference but who's to say there wouldnt be interference in this match?
Gimmick-wise taker wins hands down. I am not going to dispute this.
Talent-wise both are fantastic in-ring and on the mic. I just feel that HBK has the edge on taker in these places. Both are entertaining to watch but when it comes down to it i feel michaels is just more entertaining.
I see michaels as great as both face and heel but taker i see has a great heel not so much as a face(mainly due to his gimmick i suppose). I have never really got into taker as a face character only ever as a heel. Michaels on the other hand i feel preforms equally well as both face and heel.
The last while well watching taker i just feel he has lost a step and i feel he should retire(this thing with kane should be his last build up fued i think.) Whereas with michaels i was still loving his matchs and don't think he needed to retire.
People talk alot about clean wins but a win is a win no matter how its achieved.
My vote will be going to HBK in this one and i know anybody who wants taker to win will discredit any arguement made for shawn but people need to look past the fact that taker beat michaels twice at Mania because we all know thats when taker is at his best(kayfabe and in my opinion all the time). If the matchs werent at mania then the results may have been different.

 

[Remix]

I'm not going to repeat myself a million times on here . Especially seeings as you completely ignored everything I said regarding this NOT being a kayfabe tournament, because it completely breaks down your "OMG KAYFABEZZ" argument.

How else are you supposed to judge it other than by kayfabe accomplisments? Drawing power (Shawn was never a draw), wrestling ability (Shawn over sells like a bitch, 'Taker no sells, and they both wrestle the same match most times they come out), promocutting (I don't rate either of them), impact on the buisness ('Taker has the best gimmick in the buisness, is 18-0 at 'Mania, set the bar for big guys that they've been sailing undernieth ever since and has good matches. Shawn has great matches and trained Danielson (who probably owes as much, if not more to William Regal, btw)). By any arbitary scale you use 'Taker comes out on top.

Sure, there will be people who enjoy watching The Undertaker more, but they'll vote for him anyway.

Same goes for Shawn.

I've yet to see The Undertaker do something that Shawn can not. Aside from come back from the dead and all that

How about:

• Get Kane over
• Get 'the urn' over
• Pull off the rediculous gimmick he was given for two decades
• Be an active wrestler for over two decades, without needing a fuckload of time off
• Have sex with Michelle McCool
• Pin Hulk Hogan in the middle of Hulkamania
• Pin Hulk Hogan again
• Tombstone Mark Henry
• Beat Shawn Michaels clean
• Beat Shawn Michaels clean again
• Be undefeated at Wrestlemania
• Never tap out in his career
• Beaten Batista clean
• Beaten John Cena clean in under half an hour

Yeah, 'Taker should go over here.

 

[HBK-aholic]

How else are you supposed to judge it other than by kayfabe accomplisments? Drawing power (Shawn was never a draw),

Is The Undertaker? The only time Shawn has ever been given a shot at proving he was a 'draw', the WWE was up against the toughest competition it's ever had. While that shows Shawn isn't the biggest draw ever, it also shows we can't accurately measure how much of draw he is, especially in comparison to people like Cena, whose toughest competition is, lol, TNA?

, promocutting (I don't rate either of them),

Shawn has the upperhand here, easily.

('Taker has the best gimmick in the buisness,

Arguable. What makes it the best?

set the bar for big guys that they've been sailing undernieth ever since

And Shawn has set the bar for everyone else. Just look at threads about his retirement "Who will have the great matches now? Especially at WM?" or threads about ladder matches - when is Shawn Michaels NOT mentioned there?

and has good matches.

And Shawn has great matches

Same goes for Shawn.

Exactly, so no point trying to win over those people.

How about:

• Get Kane over

Yep Kane's a huge star. Who knows where the business would be without him..

Get 'the urn' over

Gosh, how will one ever defeat this?

Pull off the rediculous gimmick he was given for two decades

So, like Shawn?

• Be an active wrestler for over two decades, without needing a fuckload of time off

This is a joke, right?

Have sex with Michelle McCool

Ew.

Tombstone Mark Henry

• Beat Shawn Michaels clean
• Beat Shawn Michaels clean again

I've already explained why The Undertaker beating someone at WM means nothing in terms of who the better wrestler is. McMahon isn't writing that The Undertaker HAS to win in this match.

• Be undefeated at Wrestlemania

And how many of those matches are classics? Shawn has never had a bad match at WM, and a majority of them are great.

• Beaten John Cena clean in under half an hour

Shawn not only made Cena look great at WM, he went on to wrestle an hour with him just after this to gain the win.

 

[Tastycles]

The only line of defence for the Michaels supporters going through this thread seems to be that Michaels beat Taker twice in the late 90s. However, in order to do so he had to use some of the most blatant interferance of all time. We aren't talking subtle ref distractions, we're talking people getting into the ring and twatting him. There's absolutely no way that's going to happen here. Far more telling is perhaps their non gimmick match at Ground Zero ended in a no contest because Triple H got involved.

Essentially, Michaels cannot and will not be able to take Taker down without half the western world helping him, which won't go unoticed. At best for Michaels this is a DQ defeat. Taker wins.

 

[pun2003hh]

Hey, everyone in this tournament can vote in any way they please. For me, I try to base it on three things. Historical contributions, Kayfabe, and personal preference. Also, I rate those factors by importance, with the heaviest factor being historical contributions and the least important factor being my own personal preference.

As I said earlier, in terms of historical contributions or basically how important each man's career was to this business, I believe this is a wash. Both men were cornerstones in the WWE and have both been the backbone of the industry.

In terms of Kayfabe, sorry, but whether we are talking WrestleMania or not, bottom line is Taker has two high profile clean wins over HBK as well as the fact that he bested him in the final minutes of the 07 Rumble. HBK has two wins over Taker and both required a large amount of outside interference. It doesn't matter if it is WrestleMania or if Vince won't let taker lose because this is after all the "Kayfabe" reasoning behind it. Takers 2 WM wins > HBK's wins at Bad Blood and the RR 98.

In terms of personal preference, I actually do prefer HBK over Taker. HBK is the all around more entertaining performer (though Taker isn't a slouch or far behind by any means).

When it comes down to it, they were equally important to the business. But in terms of kayfabe, there is no evidence that would indicate that in a tournament like this one, which if it ever actually happened it would be as important as a WrestleMania, HBK would be able to beat the deadman.

I like HBK, but not enough for me to foolishly say that he would beat the Undertaker in this situation. My vote remains with the Undertaker.

 

[Remix]

Is The Undertaker?

I don't know. Mostly because he was never egotistical enough to politic his way into being 'the guy' and fail miserably when he did.

The only time Shawn has ever been given a shot at proving he was a 'draw', the WWE was up against the toughest competition it's ever had.

Yep, and that's why in San Antonio, whan Shawn achieved his boyhood dream, the majority of the crowd got let in for free. Clearly, he was a massive draw.

While that shows Shawn isn't the biggest draw ever, it also shows we can't accurately measure how much of draw he is, especially in comparison to people like Cena, whose toughest competition is, lol, TNA?

And yet, when Cena is off Raw, the ratingsw drop. What happened to the ratings when Shawn broke his back and took the next few years off?

Shawn has the upperhand here, easily.

Presumably because you find "[Wrestler] you [Actioned] me. For that [Threat]. At [PPV] you will... REST...IN...PEACE" *eyeroll* promos as bad as I do. Shawn is no great shakes on the mic either, by the way. But, since I agree with you I guess I should be glad that they're having a wrestling match, not a talk off.

Arguable. What makes it the best?

Because it's so fucking recognisable, so memorable, so enduring, and able to support more than himself (Kane got to the midcard on 'Taker's coat tails, The Ministry was gotten over by 'Taker's gimmick, and of course Paul Bearer).

And Shawn has set the bar for everyone else.

A bar which has been raised by guys like Angle. 'Taker has been unsurpassed since 1990. Shawn has been surpassed by multiple people.

Just look at threads about his retirement "Who will have the great matches now? Especially at WM?"

I try to avoid threads that are full of fanwank.

or threads about ladder matches - when is Shawn Michaels NOT mentioned there?

Because he was in the first one. If it had been 'Taker vs Diesel in the first Ladder match he'd get a ton of mentions too. Jeff Hardy gets mentioned lots in threads about Ladders too. Does that mean he's better than 'Taker as well?

And Shawn has great matches

Subjective and unprovable. They have the same number of 5-star matches by Meltzer by the way. Going by that, we can say they produce the same amount of great matches.

Exactly, so no point trying to win over those people.

'Those people' which is a group that includes you.

Yep Kane's a huge star. Who knows where the business would be without him..

It's something that 'Taker did that Shawn didn't.

Gosh, how will one ever defeat this?

How many times did 'Taker get magically revived by that urn? How many times did it end up winning him the match? How rediculous was it, that it could somehow make him stronger? And yet it got over. Coincidentally, what's the most rediculous thing that Shawn got over?

So, like Shawn?

Last time I checked, 'Zombie' was odder than whatever the hell Shawn's gimmick can be called. (not a slur on him, i'm just not sure whether to call him a rocker, a heartbreaker or what).

This is a joke, right?

Becca, Shawn stopped wrestling for three whole years. Last time I checked, 'Taker hasn't taken that much time off.

Ew.

She's hotter than Shawn's wife.

I've already explained why The Undertaker beating someone at WM means nothing in terms of who the better wrestler is.

So, Shawn losing clean to the same guy twise in a row has nothing to do with how good they are in kayfabe? Face it Becca, if this is your best arguement, Shawn deserves to lose.

McMahon isn't writing that The Undertaker HAS to win in this match.

If we were to take it as a legit fight, 'Taker would destroy Shawn. Coincidentally, Shawn's record in legit fights is poor.

And how many of those matches are classics?

I'll let you know when I've watched them. Also debatable and subjective.

Shawn has never had a bad match at WM, and a majority of them are great.

Debatable and subjective.

Shawn not only made Cena look great at WM, he went on to wrestle an hour with him just after this to gain the win.

Note how it took him an hour. If it takes Shawn an hour to do something that takes 'Taker less than half that time, it doesn't look good for Shawn, does it?

Shawn has no finishing power. Which is he has a losing record to 'Taker and couldn't put Cena or Hart away quickly. Face it Becca and the rest of you Heart Broke Kids, Shawn has no ground to stand on here. in Kayfabe he can't beat 'Taker without Kane and can't beat big names in a short period of time. 'Taker's ability to withstand beatings is legendary, and Shawn has never been able to get it done against 'Taker. Not in singles matches, not in HiaC, not in a casket match.

Coincidentally, 'Taker near damn crippled Shawn. Shawn has never done that sort of damage to anyone, let alone the deadman.

Vote 'Taker, because he can, will and should beat Shawn Michaels.

 

[DCubedxDDD]

The fact that this isn't Wrestlemania makes me want to choose my all-time favorite in Shawn Michaels, but when I had a chance to vote on these matches and I coudn't help but have an open mind because I think thats the right thing to do....so in saying that I will go with The Undertaker. Simple reasoning......I feel like the last two Wrestlemanias proved that Shawn couldn't keep down Taker nor could he prevent from making a mistake or two and lose the damn matches. like Remix just stated Shawn can't beat Taker one on one in kayfabe, but I would expect a drag out fight, Shawn making that one mistake and Taker capitalizes and wins and advances to the Finals. Gotta be objective here and not be a mark....it's for the integrity of the Tournament.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I don't know. Mostly because he was never egotistical enough to politic his way into being 'the guy' and fail miserably when he did.

Again, who were the WWE up against at this time? You think we can blame that on SHAWN? You're unbelievably stupid if you think that's the case.

And yet, when Cena is off Raw, the ratingsw drop. What happened to the ratings when Shawn broke his back and took the next few years off?

Ignoring my point? We can not compare Shawn's drawing power against WCW than any recent 'drawing power' against TNA.

Presumably because you find "[Wrestler] you [Actioned] me. For that [Threat]. At [PPV] you will... REST...IN...PEACE" *eyeroll* promos as bad as I do. Shawn is no great shakes on the mic either, by the way. But, since I agree with you I guess I should be glad that they're having a wrestling match, not a talk off.

Except, again, we can vote using any criteria we like. If you want to do the right thing and vote for the best all round wrestler, this is a very important point.

Because it's so fucking recognisable, so memorable, so enduring, and able to support more than himself (Kane got to the midcard on 'Taker's coat tails, The Ministry was gotten over by 'Taker's gimmick, and of course Paul Bearer).

I could argue the heartbreak kid gimmick is also memorable, enduring etc. As well as being flashy and fun.

A bar which has been raised by guys like Angle. 'Taker has been unsurpassed since 1990. Shawn has been surpassed by multiple people.

Very subjective - no one has surpassed Shawn in terms of style or amazing matches.

Because he was in the first one. If it had been 'Taker vs Diesel in the first Ladder match he'd get a ton of mentions too. Jeff Hardy gets mentioned lots in threads about Ladders too. Does that mean he's better than 'Taker as well?

Hart was in that first match with him - or are we talking about Ramon? Either way, why are they not mentioned as ladder match inovators? Because it was SHAWN who stole the show there.

Subjective and unprovable. They have the same number of 5-star matches by Meltzer by the way. Going by that, we can say they produce the same amount of great matches.

Shall we count how many MOTY's Shawn has in comparison to The Undertaker? In fact, isn't one of the only ones Undertaker has managed to win against Shawn? Whereas Shawn is on a...6 year win streak?

'Those people' which is a group that includes you.

I can include you in The Undertaker group. If people are already set on voting one wrester no one will change their mind, for either.

Last time I checked, 'Zombie' was odder than whatever the hell Shawn's gimmick can be called. (not a slur on him, i'm just not sure whether to call him a rocker, a heartbreaker or what).

You mean, getting over a gimmick which could, quite easily, have had every male viewer hate him? Being that, for a long time, his gimmick was, simply, based around his boyish good looks?

Becca, Shawn stopped wrestling for three whole years. Last time I checked, 'Taker hasn't taken that much time off.

I'm sure Shawn apologises for damaging his back so much he NEEDED that time off. Seriously, using this as an argument for The Undertaker is fucking laughable, the guy spends half of his time never being on TV, and often, when he does, it's to show up in the ring after things go dark...and that's it.

She's hotter than Shawn's wife.

Something we agree on

So, Shawn losing clean to the same guy twise in a row has nothing to do with how good they are in kayfabe? Face it Becca, if this is your best arguement, Shawn deserves to lose.

It has EVERYTHING to do with The Undertakers undefeated streak, and then Shawn wanting to retire. The Undertaker is NEVER going to lose that - does that mean he's better than everyone he's ever beaten?

I'll let you know when I've watched them. Also debatable and subjective.

This whole thing is subjective, so I really have no clue why you keep saying that.

Note how it took him an hour. If it takes Shawn an hour to do something that takes 'Taker less than half that time, it doesn't look good for Shawn, does it?

Did you miss the part where I said Shawn made Cena look great during both those matches? Something else we can add to Shawn being the better wrestler - he always makes opponents look fantastic. Compared to The Undertaker, who no sells everything.

Shawn has no finishing power. Which is he has a losing record to 'Taker and couldn't put Cena or Hart away quickly. Face it Becca and the rest of you Heart Broke Kids, Shawn has no ground to stand on here. in Kayfabe he can't beat 'Taker without Kane and can't beat big names in a short period of time. 'Taker's ability to withstand beatings is legendary, and Shawn has never been able to get it done against 'Taker. Not in singles matches, not in HiaC, not in a casket match.

And Taker can't beat Shawn outside of WM, where he hides behind his streak.

Coincidentally, 'Taker near damn crippled Shawn. Shawn has never done that sort of damage to anyone, let alone the deadman.

Oh well done, this is a GREAT reason to vote for The Undertaker - he can CRIPPLE his opponents. Well, I guess NOW I have to vote him..

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Again, who were the WWE up against at this time? You think we can blame that on SHAWN? You're unbelievably stupid if you think that's the case.




Ignoring my point? We can not compare Shawn's drawing power against WCW than any recent 'drawing power' against TNA.



Except, again, we can vote using any criteria we like. If you want to do the right thing and vote for the best all round wrestler, this is a very important point.





I could argue the heartbreak kid gimmick is also memorable, enduring etc. As well as being flashy and fun.



Very subjective - no one has surpassed Shawn in terms of style or amazing matches.



Hart was in that first match with him - or are we talking about Ramon? Either way, why are they not mentioned as ladder match inovators? Because it was SHAWN who stole the show there.





Shall we count how many MOTY's Shawn has in comparison to The Undertaker? In fact, isn't one of the only ones Undertaker has managed to win against Shawn? Whereas Shawn is on a...6 year win streak?



I can include you in The Undertaker group. If people are already set on voting one wrester no one will change their mind, for either.



You mean, getting over a gimmick which could, quite easily, have had every male viewer hate him? Being that, for a long time, his gimmick was, simply, based around his boyish good looks?



I'm sure Shawn apologises for damaging his back so much he NEEDED that time off. Seriously, using this as an argument for The Undertaker is fucking laughable, the guy spends half of his time never being on TV, and often, when he does, it's to show up in the ring after things go dark...and that's it.



Something we agree on




It has EVERYTHING to do with The Undertakers undefeated streak, and then Shawn wanting to retire. The Undertaker is NEVER going to lose that - does that mean he's better than everyone he's ever beaten?





This whole thing is subjective, so I really have no clue why you keep saying that.




Did you miss the part where I said Shawn made Cena look great during both those matches? Something else we can add to Shawn being the better wrestler - he always makes opponents look fantastic. Compared to The Undertaker, who no sells everything.



And Taker can't beat Shawn outside of WM, where he hides behind his streak.



Oh well done, this is a GREAT reason to vote for The Undertaker - he can CRIPPLE his opponents. Well, I guess NOW I have to vote him..

Those MOTY wins are laughable at best. Angle/HBK was overrated at WM 21 and was the 3rd best of the night and don't get me started on his match with Mr. McMahon. Undertaker/Angle at NWO was a hundred times better. Of course they were going to give it to him at WM 24 because of Flair's retirement. If it was Carlito vs. Flair, they would say it was match of the year.

HBK can't beat Taker when it really counts which is this stage of the tournament.

I love how you talk about the Undertaker's selling when HBK gets hit with one punch and he sells it like he just got hit by a truck and Shawn did not carry Cena. Cena got the best out of Shawn than anyone else in a year and a half and that's a fact.

Never say never when regarding Undertaker's streak. You're going to look real foolish if somebody does what HBK couldn't do given the opportunity twice.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Those MOTY wins are laughable at best. Angle/HBK was overrated at WM 21 and was the 3rd best of the night and don't get me started on his match with Mr. McMahon. Undertaker/Angle at NWO was a hundred times better. Of course they were going to give it to him at WM 24 because of Flair's retirement. If it was Carlito vs. Flair, they would say it was match of the year.

Ah, I love how when I bring up SHAWN'S good matches, they're laughable, but when Meltzer and The Undertaker's 5* matches are used that's fine. Talk about looking at what you want to. I agree on McMahon match, but that's all.

HBK can't beat Taker when it really counts which is this stage of the tournament.

You mean, when McMahon is saying The Undertaker is continuing his streak? Something he's not doing now?

I love how you talk about the Undertaker's selling when HBK gets hit with one punch and he sells it like he just got hit by a truck and Shawn did not carry Cena. Cena got the best out of Shawn than anyone else in a year and a half and that's a fact.

It's a fact? Really, I'd love to see how you call that a 'fact'. That's just such a stupid statement. I never said Shawn 'carried' Cena, I said he made him look great - even though Shawn won the Raw match, Cena never looked weak.

Never say never when regarding Undertaker's streak. You're going to look real foolish if somebody does what HBK couldn't do given the opportunity twice.

I'll gladly call myself silly if this ever happens, short of it being his retirement match.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Ah, I love how when I bring up SHAWN'S good matches, they're laughable, but when Meltzer and The Undertaker's 5* matches are used that's fine. Talk about looking at what you want to. I agree on McMahon match, but that's all.

You mean, when McMahon is saying The Undertaker is continuing his streak? Something he's not doing now?
It's a fact? Really, I'd love to see how you call that a 'fact'. That's just such a stupid statement. I never said Shawn 'carried' Cena, I said he made him look great - even though Shawn won the Raw match, Cena never looked weak.

I'll gladly call myself silly if this ever happens, short of it being his retirement match.

The Undertaker may decide tomorrow or two years from now (if he's still around) that he wants his streak to end.

Cena was having great matches the year before he faced Shawn Michaels. He had great matches with HHH, Edge, and RVD. Honestly I can only name two or three singles matches HBK had in 2006 and those were against Shane and Vince McMahon.

If we're going off of primes, it's true that HBK in his prime beat Undertaker. However, I can just as well say that Undertaker in his prime beat HBK.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The Undertaker may decide tomorrow or two years from now (if he's still around) that he wants his streak to end.

Maybe so. I doubt it, though.

Honestly I can only name two or three singles matches HBK had in 2006 and those were against Shane and Vince McMahon.

He wrestled on every Raw-brand PPV of that year, if I remember correctly. Do you recall Shawn being part of a, um, tag team, for over half of that year? He's NOT going to be having singles matches when he's wrestling with Triple H. He was still having matches, on TV - only this time part of the DX gimmick. I honestly have no idea why this is a point.

If we're going off of primes, it's true that HBK in his prime beat Undertaker. However, I can just as well say that Undertaker in his prime beat HBK.

Indeed - both has beaten the other, fans of The Undertaker can point to interferences, fans of Shawn can point to The Undertaker's undefeated streak. Which is why you need to look at MORE than past records in matches, and look at the issues we've been discussing. This isn't a kayfae tournament, so every other reason is just as legitimate.

 

[pun2003hh]

Those MOTY wins are laughable at best. Angle/HBK was overrated at WM 21 and was the 3rd best of the night and don't get me started on his match with Mr. McMahon. Undertaker/Angle at NWO was a hundred times better. Of course they were going to give it to him at WM 24 because of Flair's retirement. If it was Carlito vs. Flair, they would say it was match of the year.

Whoa whoa whoa, look, I agree that Taker should go over here, but I can't let these statements go by with out commenting. To say that the Angle/HBK match was overrated or even "3rd best" is a complete joke. Many fans on here will agree that match was one of the best Mania matches in years and head and shoulders above the rest of the card at WM21. Taker's match with Orton was also very good that year, but no where near the classic of Michaels/Angle.

Just because you didn't like the match (which I have no clue why you wouldn't if you call yourself a wrestling fan) doesn't mean it didn't deserve the accolades that it received. I personally was bored by the Warrior/Hogan WM match years ago, but I won't argue with anyone due to the fact that 95% of all fans will put that match in the top 5 Mania moments. I just accept that the match wasn't for me.

Going to WM 22, HBK/McMahon wasn't a classic by any means but it was infinitely more entertaining the the Henry/Taker Casket match in my humble opinion. I feel like I'd have alot of backing on that one.

WM 23, Taker/Batista stole the show but that doesn't mean Cena/HBK wasn't a great match. And completely disagree with the fact that Cena was having great matches with anyone in 06/07. Cena has come into his own over the last two years as a guy that can give anybody a great match, but back then, he was being carried to great matches by HBK, Triple H, and Angle.

WM 24, Flair/HBK was a prime example of how important storytelling is in a match and it was Michaels leading a 50+ year old man well out of his prime to what was one of the most emotional matches in years.

I am not flipping sides here, I just think that anyone that discredits HBK as a performer like you have tried to doesn't know what they are talking about. Shawn Michaels was one of the greatest performers in the history of the industry and in my opinion, he actually retired in his prime because he just got better every single year. Despite the fact that he wrestled part time, he ALWAYS gave us quality.

Ha, but despite my pro HBK rant, the one thing I will agree with is HBK's inability to beat the Undertaker on a big stage such as this.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Whoa whoa whoa, look, I agree that Taker should go over here, but I can't let these statements go by with out commenting. To say that the Angle/HBK match was overrated or even "3rd best" is a complete joke. Many fans on here will agree that match was one of the best Mania matches in years and head and shoulders above the rest of the card at WM21. Taker's match with Orton was also very good that year, but no where near the classic of Michaels/Angle.

Just because you didn't like the match (which I have no clue why you wouldn't if you call yourself a wrestling fan) doesn't mean it didn't deserve the accolades that it received. I personally was bored by the Warrior/Hogan WM match years ago, but I won't argue with anyone due to the fact that 95% of all fans will put that match in the top 5 Mania moments. I just accept that the match wasn't for me.

Going to WM 22, HBK/McMahon wasn't a classic by any means but it was infinitely more entertaining the the Henry/Taker Casket match in my humble opinion. I feel like I'd have alot of backing on that one.

WM 23, Taker/Batista stole the show but that doesn't mean Cena/HBK wasn't a great match. And completely disagree with the fact that Cena was having great matches with anyone in 06/07. Cena has come into his own over the last two years as a guy that can give anybody a great match, but back then, he was being carried to great matches by HBK, Triple H, and Angle.

WM 24, Flair/HBK was a prime example of how important storytelling is in a match and it was Michaels leading a 50+ year old man well out of his prime to what was one of the most emotional matches in years.

I am not flipping sides here, I just think that anyone that discredits HBK as a performer like you have tried to doesn't know what they are talking about. Shawn Michaels was one of the greatest performers in the history of the industry and in my opinion, he actually retired in his prime because he just got better every single year. Despite the fact that he wrestled part time, he ALWAYS gave us quality.

Ha, but despite my pro HBK rant, the one thing I will agree with is HBK's inability to beat the Undertaker on a big stage such as this.

Angle was more of a hinderance to Cena than a help. The one thing Angle could not get through his head was to differentiate his style as a face and a heel. His match with HBK was good until about halfway through before it became a spotfest. Cena helped Edge become a credible main eventer and had the crowd in the palm of his hand at One Night Stand.

I'm not completely discrediting HBK as a performer. I just don't think his matches everybody says are great are just that- great. HBK did not get better every single year if you mean by having one or two great matches a year.

 

[Remix]

Again, who were the WWE up against at this time? You think we can blame that on SHAWN? You're unbelievably stupid if you think that's the case.

The blame doesn't lie solely with Shawn. But look at what happened when somenone who could draw (Stone Cold) stepped into the main event.

Ignoring my point? We can not compare Shawn's drawing power against WCW than any recent 'drawing power' against TNA.

Except that I'm not comparing John Cena's drawing capacity against competition. I'm comparing Raw's ratings without Cena to with Cena. Same competition. Raw's ratings drop without Cena, therefore he is a draw. Pull up some evidence that suggests Shawn is, or ever has been a draw.

Except, again, we can vote using any criteria we like. If you want to do the right thing and vote for the best all round wrestler, this is a very important point.

'Taker's everypromo is memorable and REST...IN...PIECE is over as a catchphrase. Shawn's promos may be technically superior, but I cannot remember a single one of them. Unless he's saying 'and if you're not down with that, we've got two words for ya...' but that's hardly a promo.

I could argue the heartbreak kid gimmick is also memorable, enduring etc. As well as being flashy and fun.

You could. But it still wouldn't be as good as 'Taker's. Not least because his hasn't had the ability to support an entire ensemble.

Very subjective - no one has surpassed Shawn in terms of style or amazing matches.

Benoit and Angle were both diverse wrestlers who were inarguably technically superior. You could also make a case for Bret being better too.

Hart was in that first match with him - or are we talking about Ramon? Either way, why are they not mentioned as ladder match inovators? Because it was SHAWN who stole the show there.

I was making the point that whoever was in the first ladder match is going to get a lot of mentions in threads about ladder matches. Just like HBK gets a lot of mentions in HIAC threads because he was in the first one.

Shall we count how many MOTY's Shawn has in comparison to The Undertaker? In fact, isn't one of the only ones Undertaker has managed to win against Shawn? Whereas Shawn is on a...6 year win streak?

Good for Shawn. How many of those matches did he win? Shawn's best matches are the ones where he's lost. Especially when they're in big match situations. And a tournament where the winner is crowned best wrestler is certainly a big match scenario, putting Shawn at a disadvantage.

I can include you in The Undertaker group. If people are already set on voting one wrester no one will change their mind, for either.

YOu can include me in the group that's voting logically. Logically, Shawn stands no chance. Statistically Shawn stands no chance. In practice, Shawn stands no chance. No matter how you slice it, Shawn's screwed.

You mean, getting over a gimmick which could, quite easily, have had every male viewer hate him? Being that, for a long time, his gimmick was, simply, based around his boyish good looks?

and 'Taker got a gimmick over that wouldn't work at a circus. By rights he should have got laughed out of the building. I mean c'mon could you take an unfeeling, uncaring walking corpse who draws his power from an urn carried by as man with a blatant pun for a name seriously? And yet, 'Taker has been taken seriously for near damn 20 years.

I'm sure Shawn apologises for damaging his back so much he NEEDED that time off.

Shawn didn't damage his back. Taker broke it by bodyslamming him on a coffin. (I think. Either way, it was 'Taker who broke it)

Seriously, using this as an argument for The Undertaker is fucking laughable

It's less laughable when you remember that it was 'Taker who caused the severe back damage that kept him out for 3 years.

the guy spends half of his time never being on TV, and often, when he does, it's to show up in the ring after things go dark...and that's it.

Doesn't Shawn take roughly the same amount of time off? And isn't 'Taker's usually a result of being injured?

It has EVERYTHING to do with The Undertakers undefeated streak, and then Shawn wanting to retire.

Doesn't change the fact that he lost.

The Undertaker is NEVER going to lose that - does that mean he's better than everyone he's ever beaten?

When it's against a guy who has never been able to return the favor without Kane. Yes it does (in kayfabe).

This whole thing is subjective, so I really have no clue why you keep saying that.

It's not all subjective. The fact that Shawn has an appauling record against 'Taker isn't subjective. The fact that Shawn loses when the lights are on isn't subjective. The fact that Shawn takes a long time to beat tough opponents isn't subjective.

It's not all subjective, just that things that Shawn stands a chance of beating 'Taker in are. You can make a case for Shawn being a better in ring performer than 'Taker. You can make a case for Hulk Hogan being a better in ring performer than Kenta Kobashi. That doesn't make it true, or any less of an opinion, or any more of a convincing arguement.

Did you miss the part where I said Shawn made Cena look great during both those matches?

No, i just considered it irrelavent. I'm talking about results and empirical data. How good the opponent looks doesn't matter here. What matters is who wins, and how long it took. And Shawn took an hour where 'Taker took far less.

Something else we can add to Shawn being the better wrestler - he always makes opponents look fantastic. Compared to The Undertaker, who no sells everything.

And how exactly is Shawn's fantastic ability to sell going to help him win here?

And Taker can't beat Shawn outside of WM, where he hides behind his streak.

THen why hasn't SHawn beaten 'Taker clean then? Every time SHawn's won has been because Kane did what he couldn't and put the Deadman down for the count.

Oh well done, this is a GREAT reason to vote for The Undertaker - he can CRIPPLE his opponents. Well, I guess NOW I have to vote him..

As opposed to Shawn, who can't finish them. At least we know 'Taker's moves have enough force behind them to do enough damage to keep someone down for a three count.

 

[Megadeth]

I had predicted the HBK would win the tourney this year, but that was based on me assuming there would be a whole lot of pro-HBK people coming out with his retirement this year. That being said, despite predicting Michaels to win the whole thing, in this particular match-up I have to go with The Undertaker.
I happened to be at the Louisville Gardens the first time these 2 men went one on one at IYH Ground Zero, and while the match may have ended in a double-DQ or no contest or whatever, I remember Michaels cowering behind a ref and trying to do everything he could to get out of the match. And for the majority of that match the Undertaker was dominating HBK, until HHH and Chyna showed up, and even then Taker was holding his own.

Fast Forward to the first ever Hell in a Cell, the Undertaker had HBK beat until Kane showed up. Then we go to the Royal Rumble, in the casket match. And while HBK may have won the match with a lot of help, it was that match that Michaels was injured in so bad he left the WWE and did not wrestle for over 4 years. And I dont think I even need to mention their 2 WM matches. The Undertaker put HBK out the first time for 4 years, and then at WM26 the Dead man finished the job.

So my vote is easily for The Undertaker.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

How poetic is it, that everything with Shawn Michaels in real life.. came to a hault in the very same place, against the very same individual as things will (or should) come to an end for him, in this Tournament.

When you look through every bit of information regarding this two.. Shawn Michaels can not win, without someone - or something - helping him, against the Undertaker. And the Undertaker has NEVER lost to Shawn Michaels, without someone - or something - helping cause it.

There is no argument that can defeat that logic. There is no sound understanding that can unseat this fact. Is Shawn Michaels athletic? Yes. Is Shawn Michaels one of the very best this business has ever seen? Absolutely. Does any of that matter, when every single fact and proof of evidence points to the fact that one man has never lost cleanly, and the other has never won cleanly? 100%, without a doubt, NO.

The Undertaker is your winner. And the only way around it, is heartfelt fans looking beyond every actual fact.. ignoring them all, for the sympathetic retirement of HBK.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The blame doesn't lie solely with Shawn. But look at what happened when somenone who could draw (Stone Cold) stepped into the main event.

Exactly - which is why I'm not arguing Shawn is the best draw ever, I'm saying we just can't accurately look at it. Very few people would have done what Austin did, and they ARE the amazing draws. But that doesn't mean Shawn is a bad draw.

Except that I'm not comparing John Cena's drawing capacity against competition. I'm comparing Raw's ratings without Cena to with Cena. Same competition. Raw's ratings drop without Cena, therefore he is a draw. Pull up some evidence that suggests Shawn is, or ever has been a draw.

Actually, Cena's drawing power in terms of Raws ratings has been vastly overrated. There are many more factors to look at.

'Taker's everypromo is memorable and REST...IN...PIECE is over as a catchphrase. Shawn's promos may be technically superior, but I cannot remember a single one of them. Unless he's saying 'and if you're not down with that, we've got two words for ya...' but that's hardly a promo.

I remember a majority of them - how about the absolutely fantastic one before Mania last year? He was dressed all in white, and gave one of the best promos I've ever seen. Every Taker promo is THE SAME if that's what you mean by memorable.

Benoit and Angle were both diverse wrestlers who were inarguably technically superior. You could also make a case for Bret being better too.

But not only is Shawn very technically skilled, he has the style and charisma to go with it - something Angle and Benoit lack.

I was making the point that whoever was in the first ladder match is going to get a lot of mentions in threads about ladder matches. Just like HBK gets a lot of mentions in HIAC threads because he was in the first one.

And I was asking why it is that Hart isn't also mentioned that positively, if it is, indeed only because Shawn was in the first match?

YOu can include me in the group that's voting logically. Logically, Shawn stands no chance. Statistically Shawn stands no chance. In practice, Shawn stands no chance. No matter how you slice it, Shawn's screwed.

No, you're just looking it at directly from a kayfabe perspective, and your only argument is Wrestlemania.

and 'Taker got a gimmick over that wouldn't work at a circus. By rights he should have got laughed out of the building. I mean c'mon could you take an unfeeling, uncaring walking corpse who draws his power from an urn carried by as man with a blatant pun for a name seriously? And yet, 'Taker has been taken seriously for near damn 20 years.

Of course it was a difficult gimmick - so was Shawns.

Shawn didn't damage his back. Taker broke it by bodyslamming him on a coffin. (I think. Either way, it was 'Taker who broke it)


It's less laughable when you remember that it was 'Taker who caused the severe back damage that kept him out for 3 years.

Seriously, continue giving reasons for why Taker is so bad in the ring he can cause someone to be out of the business for years? All this does is make me NEED to vote against him because it's such a bad argument. I'm sure Shawn COULD quite easily damage someone that much, as could most wrestlers. They just don't.

Doesn't Shawn take roughly the same amount of time off? And isn't 'Taker's usually a result of being injured?

You're not THIS bad at debating are you? Your original point was bitching about Shawn taking time off - specifically those 3 years (For INJURY) and now you're saying they take the same time off, but it's okay if it's injury for Taker?

Doesn't change the fact that he lost.

You're not THIS dim are you? Open your mind and maybe you'll like, understand what is being said. Yes The Undertaker won - why?

When it's against a guy who has never been able to return the favor without Kane. Yes it does (in kayfabe).

*NOT A KAYFABE TOURNAMENT*

It's not all subjective. The fact that Shawn has an appauling record against 'Taker isn't subjective. The fact that Shawn loses when the lights are on isn't subjective. The fact that Shawn takes a long time to beat tough opponents isn't subjective.

The record that has Shawn actually winning more of those matches? You can moan about intereferences, but I'm just going to come straight back at you with Shawn actually CHOOSING to lose this year - it had nothing to do with The Undertaker.

It's not all subjective, just that things that Shawn stands a chance of beating 'Taker in are. You can make a case for Shawn being a better in ring performer than 'Taker. You can make a case for Hulk Hogan being a better in ring performer than Kenta Kobashi. That doesn't make it true, or any less of an opinion, or any more of a convincing arguement.

It does when you open your eyes and realise we don't HAVE to vote kayfabe here. They're the only arguments anyone uses because it's easy to say "wresltmaniazzzzzzzz" for The Undertaker.

No, i just considered it irrelavent. I'm talking about results and empirical data. How good the opponent looks doesn't matter here. What matters is who wins, and how long it took. And Shawn took an hour where 'Taker took far less.

See above - I'm not arguing from a kayfabe side, rendering this pointless.

THen why hasn't SHawn beaten 'Taker clean then? Every time SHawn's won has been because Kane did what he couldn't and put the Deadman down for the count

Well who knows, maybe Shawn would have won anyway

As opposed to Shawn, who can't finish them. At least we know 'Taker's moves have enough force behind them to do enough damage to keep someone down for a three count.

Seriousy - pathetic. Which Wrestler COULDN'T cripple someone if they wanted to?