That may be the case but michaels won the matchs. Interference or not the matchs were won by michaels. Michaels in his prime was a heel and so winning by interference was always something he was happy to do.
Ah, how I loved that argument. Never worked, but I tried to push it all the time never-the-less.
Here's the deal, short and sweet. (Unless altered or changed) It has been said since the First Round in this tournament - any type of outside inteference "does not happen".
Why? I have no clue. I would assume its because they're basing one Superstar's true abilities against another's, without the influence of outside events altering the outcome. Or, you know, to screw with the heels of the tournament.
He would only be DQ'd if he was caught actually which doesn't always happen. Undertaker may have won all those matchs if people hadn't interfered but prove to me that he would have.
Okay.. in the Hell in a Cell match, if I recall he actually
HAD Shawn Michaels knocked out by a chair shot. He was then calling for the Tombstone when the lights went out, Kane appeared, the official was laid out, Kane Tombstoned Taker and HBK crawled out of a pool of his own blood - to barely make the one arm over the chest cover as it was.
If by this logic everything re-happens to help HBK win.. the official would have to be laid out. (DQ)As well as Kane, who would have to interfere. (Any outside individuals are barred from ringside.)
In the next match.. at the Royal Rumble, which was a Casket match. The Undertaker had Shawn Michaels laid out, with a Tombstone, directly INTO the Casket. At this point, the official was once again laid out and not 1, not 2, not even 4, but the combination of.. Triple H, the Outlaws, and Savio Vega's group
ALL attacked the Undertaker.. but wait, there's more. Kane once again had to be the end result, in helping make sure Taker was put away.
So, again by this logic everything re-happens to help HBK win.. the official would have to once again be laid out. (DQ) As well as Kane, Triple H, the Outlaws and a whole host of possibly illegal immigrants would have to interfere. (Any outside individuals are barred from ringside.)
The stages may be different but michaels didnt have a streak to defend that vince was going to keep going because it gets people interested in whether or not it will end, and so make him money.
So your entire argument is now that the Undertaker only won, due to his Undefeated streak.. which won't be a factor, since this tournament isn't happening at Mania. Fair enough.
How about YOU, prove to me, how Shawn Michaels can defeat the Undertaker
WITHOUT the aid of any outside interference.
You want to believe Mania is the only reason why HBK would ever lose. And yet the match, was still a match - that Taker won cleanly. Twice. On the opposite end, HBK has never beaten Taker (to my knowledge) cleanly. Which is what would be a need-to-happen thing.
The matchs are equally important because they show that michaels can beat taker, albiet with interference. Just because they aren't held at mania, where takers streak will defend him, doesn't mean the matchs don't mean anything.
Well, they would be equally important if it wasn't for the fact that the Undertaker had him beaten in the "non-Mania" matches just the same.. with the exception of that darned interference.
And once again, I'm found waiting for an explanation on how HBK can/will beat Taker cleanly.
Vince is going to hold that streak until he finds a young up and coming star to boost up very fast by ending it or he may never end it at all. High pressure situations, try the montreal screwjob making sure that bret didnt get wind of it and that they had a good match up until then, knowing that this swerve was going to give him a terrible name, which he worked back from.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Okay, this is great. So now we're going to toss in the fact that Shawn Michaels could feasibly,
ONLY, win.. if the Undertaker is under the assumption he's going to win, and Shawn Michaels locks in a submission move just to have the bell randomly ring, the announcer proclaim him victory, and a whole host of other events to unfold suddenly.
Once again proving, that even You, yourself, are in agreement that Shawn Michaels can not win this match - without some universal type of huge help.
He doesn't have to win without interference, like i said if he isnt caught then its all legal as far as the ref is concerned. Outside of Mania michaels may have won those matchs, because they were held at mania and vince wanted the streak to continue vince was always going to have taker win.
May have. Could have. What if. Didn't.
We aren't dealing in "what if's", when there is solid proof that in a clean one-on-one meeting.. one man always wins. And one man.. always loses.
My point here was that outside Mania would taker have won those matchs or not? Without his streak that vince was going to keep going michaels may have won.
No. I proved above that Taker had both matches won, and the inteference proved to be the difference maker.
The reason for this is i have always found michaels matchs more entertaining that taker ones. Michaels may oversell which when he isn't taking the piss(hogan for example) makes his opponent look strong. Where taker no sells and although that works at times and makes him look strong it makes his opponent look weak.
Uhm, yeah.. Taker's opponents were suppose to look weak in comparison.. because they were!
And on the opposite side, Shawn has been considered more of an "underdog" in size comparable to most Main Event guys.. so, in turn, he's suppose to make his opponents look stronger and better.
The reason behind the promo isn't what i was arguing at all so i dont see why you brought it up at all. As for the promo itself it was memorable and showed how good michaels is on the mic. Michaels promos were also more diverse than takers, where michaels can be comedic, serious, emotional, and make it appear like he is losing his mind(the promos leading up to this years mania). All of takers promos are the same and i find them all quite boring to be honest.
Its called character. The Undertaker clearly knew his. Michaels kept searching to understand & figure his out.
I wont be changing my vote as i feel michaels is better than undertaker.
And you certainly are entitled to think that. As I think the opposite, and am by far and away more of a Shawn Michaels fan than I will
EVER be an Undertaker fan.
In honest. Undertaker is nothing more than a pathetic fake gimmick with legs. I can't stand how people fawn over the guy.
However, in this tournament - right now - I'm voting for who is clearly the better pick. Unfortunately, its Taker.
What i was saying is that in the last few years Taker has lost it. Look at his matchs with Punk they were terrible. Whereas shawns matchs were just as good if not better as time went on. I was saying that taker has had 2 good matchs in the last 2 years and they were with michaels at mania(where yes he won but again it was for the sake of the streak). Was this because Shawn is such a great wrestler that he was able to drag two great matchs out of taker?
Are. You. Kidding. Me?!
There isn't even a logical way for me to tell you how wrong you are.
Simply put, it takes two individuals (or more) to put together a great match. It seems like someone else has also given you plenty to work with on matches between the two. (Little Jerry Lawler)
The only arguement people have for taker winning is that he won cleanly twice at Mania. Where he is going to win until vince decieds to end the streak to shoot somebody into stardom. Michaels improved over time where taker went downhill.
Yes, forbid that someone shows full-on 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, realistic proof.. that one of the individuals has
CLEANLY defeated the other,
TWICE! On the biggest show of their Company's schedule.
