WWE Region, Fourth Round, 60 Minute Iron Man Match: (2) Bret Hart vs. (3) Undertaker

[klunderbunker]

This is a fourth round match in the WWE Region. It is a 60 Minute Iron Man match. It will be held at the TD Garden in Boston, Massachusetts. Assume one week has passed since the first round matches.

Iron Man Match Rules: This is a sixty minute match with standard rules. The most falls in 60 minutes wins. A fall can be earned by pinfall, submission, countout or disqualification.​

#2. Bret Hart

Vs.

#3. Undertaker

​

Polls will be open for four days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.

 

[Shocky]

1. The Undertaker never beat Bret Hart. That's lie number one.

MSG 1992. Win for the Undertaker
[youtube]7qkMli1zxEQ[/youtube]

Royal Rumble 1996. Win for the Undertaker
[youtube]C2L4V9L8sGg[/youtube]

Raw February 1996. Draw
[youtube]xbJRaqzs0uE[/youtube]

And here's one for Bret. Such a convincing victory, thanks HBK!
Summerslam 1997.
[youtube]mgINWprJErY[/youtube]

2. The Sharpshooter is effectively worthless. The Undertaker has never submitted in his career. The Undertaker is one of a few people that have been able to power out of the Sharpshooter when Hart has applied it.

3. Bret Hart has wrestled one hour long Iron Man Match, so he should win, No. That is one anomaly. Bret wrestled several 30 minute matches, but the Undertaker has done that as well. The Undertaker isn't some fat slob that will tire out after 20 minutes. Taker has gone 30 minutes with Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle, two guys with similar cardio as Bret.

This match is going to be a good one. Their two pay per view matches are lost gems that everyone should watch. I'm going with the Undertaker, simply on personal preference. The stipulation does not overly favor one man.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I could really go either way on this one. I can't hold the Iron Man stipulation over Taker as even though I don't recall him ever going an hour (I remember him coming close a few times) it goes against his character to think he can't.

Him and Taker are relatively even against each other (I'm only taking in matched during prime though) and both have big wins and big losses in their career. Bret was the only one that was the face of the company but even that didn't guarantee him a win over the Undertaker (take the '96 Rumble as an example) so I'm gonna have to go about this another way.

I don't see Bret getting a clean pinfall over Undertaker. I assume this would be face vs. face deal so I don't see Bret cheating much in this. I could see him getting a lucky fall by count out but in 60 minutes when I look at both guys I think The Undertaker would have the advantage. He's can go 60 minutes, he rarely ever lost clean and can pin Bret in the middle of the ring, hell if Diesel didn't interfere he would have at the RR '96 and that was Bret during his prime as well (although it was to build a storyline not a tournament match).

For Bret to knock off the Undertaker in an Iron Man match you would have to get pretty creative to do it realistically so I'm gonna go with Undertaker. Even if Bret went for Takers legs for example this is Taker in his prime, eventually he's gonna move around like his legs aren't hurt. Bret's my favorite but logic is telling me Taker goes over here.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I honestly think this match could go either way. These are two wrestlers who never really resolved the question of "who is better". The few wins Bret Hart does have over Taker came about through extremely controversial fashions, including blatant interference, and Hart was saved a few times from certain defeat through the outside actions of others.

In an Iron Man Match, stamina is going to come into play. Bret Hart has a lot less weight to carry around than Taker. At the same time, Hart could potentially wear himself out by giving it everything he possibly has.

I'm definitely leaning more towards Taker in this. I don't really see Bret Hart having anything in his arsenal that can ultimately put Taker down and keep him down. There are multiple instances in which Taker has powered out of the Sharpshooter, so a submission victory for Hart is about as close to impossible as it gets. I think the best that Bret Hart could do is to catch Taker by surprise and score a fall or two due to a quick roll up or small package out of nowhere, maybe a count out or a DQ as well. I don't think that'll enough to carry him through to a win though.

Bret Hart has the Sharpshooter while Taker has the Tombstone, Hell's Gate & Last Ride. I can see a possibility of Bret Hart kicking out of some of Taker's finishers a couple of times, but I just don't seeing having the resilience to keep withstanding Taker's offense in the long run.

I think both would be pretty exhausted, the match would possibly drag a little bit in some spots, but I think Taker would probably walk out with the win. If Bret Hart makes it by here, given the stipulations of the match, I won't bitch about it, but I just can't picture him really making it past Taker.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

It's been said by others that Bret Hart hasn't beaten The Undertaker clean. If that's true it goes a long way to showing the stock WWE put into the dead man, as Bret was the face of the company for at least a couple of years. I'd imagine that all other company faces had clean wins over all their contemporaries at one pint or another. The again Bret wasn't exactly the biggest deal to ever come down wrestling's pike compared to the Austin's, Hogans, Rocks, Sammartinos and a few others.

Bret Hart has had at least one hour long Ironman match, and although within that hour he didn't lose, he did shortly into overtime. Undertaker has had some longer matches, notably last year at Wrestlemania against HHH in a match that went nearly 50 minutes I believe. In that match, if you remember, Undertaker got nothing but stronger and better as the time went on, such is the nature of his character but all the more, he didn't lose.

Bret will always be remembered primarily for his ring work, and although maybe it's not a fair comparison now that Taker has been wrestling almost 15 years longer than The Hitman, he has at least as many big great watchable matches under his belt as The Excellence of execution. In terms of ring work, there's nothing that Bret did that I would take over the last five years of The Undertaker's career.

Taker is also a better talker. Bret was at best when he was right on the verge, shouting and Mr. McMahon about being screwed over and lauding Canada as the greatest country in the world. But there's plenty of occasions where The Undertaker, especially when he was under the guise of a big 'ol biker man, could beat anything bret accomplished on the stick. The thing that counts against Taker probably the most out of all is that he was never the face of the company. But when put into perspective, I'm not sure how appropriate that criticism is of The Undertaker.

The Undertaker has almost always been relevant, loved, loathed and engaging no matter what he was into. Undertaker never needed to be the face of the WWE because he was the guy that the faces worked into. Bret/Shawn/Diesel through 94-96, Kane in 97, Austin/Rock/Foley 98-99, HHH/Austin/Angle/Rock 00-01, Lesnar/Show 02, Orton, Batista, the list goes way on and on. He's has bad feuds no doubt, but some of the absolute best along with it.

Maybe if Bret had wrestled for a bit longer, been relevant for a bit longer or been a better total package I'd take him here. I just think the career of The Deadman and the range he could demonstrate is too much for the Hitman to overcome, and I don't think the match stipulation does much to change that.

 

[Loveless]

When it came to big matches between these 2, Hart didn't win but he did consistently come away with the belt. 6 times these 2 faced off for the WWF title and 6 times, Hart left with the belt. That alone would be enough for me to vote for Hart, but it's also a similar story when you look at the modern Hart, Kurt Angle. Taker couldn't beat Angle in 4 attempts for the title.
In terms of the match, the arguments can be reasonably easy to make. In a normal match Taker wouldn't submit but in an Iron-man match it's sometimes logical to let the fall go so not to incur wear and tear. It's pretty logical that with Harts speed he's going to target the legs and that's going to make the last 30 minutes of this match very unpleasant for Taker.
Personally I think the only chance Taker has is if he storms out the blocks and racks up a few quick wins, and I think Hart is simply too clever to let that happen.

 

[HBsam31]

I agree that the Sharpshooter wouldn't get Bret any falls as Taker never submits, but it could really take Undertaker's legs away from him. I have trouble thinking that Bret has anything that could really keep Taker down, and I think the Ironman stipulation would favor Taker in that he would beat Bret down enough to get some falls on him. I always liked watching these two go at it as a kid, and I think in this instance Undertaker would just be to much for Bret. Both would tire, and I think Taker wins this one by a fall or two.

 

[wrestlingfan]

Undertaker wins this. Not only did Bret lose an Iron Man match against HBK, & Taker has more wins over Bret, Undertaker is just overall better. While Bret may be underrated on the microphone (even as a face he was good), Taker has been able to maintain a gimmick for 20 years through all eras.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

This one came quickly and easily to me. Regardless of the number of pins or submission Hart gets Taker is always going to bounce back. At some point he is going to hit a well placed Tombstone. The Tombstone is the type of move that I believe if it incapacitates you long enough for a man to fold your arms over your chest and pin you lightly, it should incapacitate you for at least an hour. UT would be able to make up all the pin falls he needs in that time. All other factors are even or minutiae.

Undertaker wins 1,389 falls to 2.

 

[Loveless]

This one came quickly and easily to me. Regardless of the number of pins or submission Hart gets Taker is always going to bounce back. At some point he is going to hit a well placed Tombstone. The Tombstone is the type of move that I believe if it incapacitates you long enough for a man to fold your arms over your chest and pin you lightly, it should incapacitate you for at least an hour. UT would be able to make up all the pin falls he needs in that time. All other factors are even or minutiae.

Undertaker wins 1,389 falls to 2.

And yet, when it mattered he never did.

WWF Title Matches

WWF One Night Only 1997
1-0 Bret Hart (c) def. (DQ) The Undertaker

WWF Friday Night's Main Event
2-0 The Undertaker def. (DQ) Bret Hart (c)

WWF SummerSlam '97
3-0 Bret Hart def. (pin) The Undertaker (c)

WWF In Your House 13: Final Four
4-0 Bret Hart def. Steve Austin, The Undertaker, Vader

WWF Royal Rumble '96
5-0 The Undertaker def. (DQ) Bret Hart (c)

WWF MSG Show
6-0 Nov 25th 1995 The Undertaker def. (DQ) Bret Hart (c)

6 times Undertaker tried to take the belt off Hart and he failed, every damn time. Let's just ignore the facts and go with Taker though.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I was struggling with this until I remembered that KB stated that the participants carried the effects of the third round match into this...

Now Taker squashed Big Show so bad it wasn't funny, whereas Bret was that taxed by Randy Orton that only posted votes willed him to the metal object on the pole and victory. So, a man famous for resistance to pain and being an unstoppable force comes up against a tired, battered, probably RKO'd and punted Hitman... and guess which area the RKO, punt AND Tombstone target?

I'm sure Bret will fight like a cornered animal, he may even garner a couple roll up style falls but he will go down to the Dead Man and go down hard!

RiP Hitman

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I figured that using margin of victory in correlation to energy and things of the like would rear its ugly head again. I hate using that argument becaue 70 people can say that Undertaker would win yet Show would give him a strong challenge. It would be contradictory to those who use the above principle. I don't think beating Big Show would be a cakewalk for anybody, Undertaker included.

I have always preferred Hart over the Undertaker and I don't find it hard to believe that Bret can get a fall on Taker. He can but I'm not quite sure it will be by submission. Loveless's argument for Hart does carry a bit of weight, though. I'm still on the fence with this one.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

The Undertaker takes this.

Between their actual matches and the stipulation, Bret Hart is at a disadvantage for numerous reasons.

• Bret Hart's primary finisher is a submission maneuver, something Taker will not succumb to, and a finisher that Taker's powered out of on a few occasions.
• Undertaker's body of work in big matches speaks for itself. The Wrestlemania streak, his early success against foes like Macho Man and Hulk Hogan, and his later success in defending his streak. There's not a major name that Undertaker hasn't beaten. Bret Hart typically loses the bigger matches. HBK and British Bulldog could back that up.
• Both competitors work longer matches and have great cardiovascular conditioning. No need to worry about Taker being gassed in this match.

I say Taker gets two falls in this match and Bret will have one thanks to a count-out or DQ.

Undertaker wins.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I figured that using margin of victory in correlation to energy and things of the like would rear its ugly head again. I hate using that argument becaue 70 people can say that Undertaker would win yet Show would give him a strong challenge. It would be contradictory to those who use the above principle. I don't think beating Big Show would be a cakewalk for anybody, Undertaker included.

I have always preferred Hart over the Undertaker and I don't find it hard to believe that Bret can get a fall on Taker. He can but I'm not quite sure it will be by submission. Loveless's argument for Hart does carry a bit of weight, though. I'm still on the fence with this one.

It is part of the competition though and KB did state that it should become a factor once the gimmick rounds started (and he provided week long breaks in between the first couple rounds so it wouldn't be a factor there). Likely as not, the actual match would be grueling as Taker and Show have had wars in the past but an 80:3 margin has to be acknowledged and taken as being something along the lines of Show going for an early chokeslam only to have the Deadman counter straight into the Hell's Gate.

48:48 with written votes getting Bret through does imply the opposite, that Randy gave him everything he could handle and more.

I can see why you don't like it; it does imply easier progression at times than what would likely happen but it does provide another cannon to shake up the chances of same guys dominating the competition year after year.

 

[bmpunk76]

In an Iron Man Match you usually have to beat your opponent more then once. I dont beleive as good as Bret was that he could beat the Undertaker more then once. Taker has too many ways too win Tombstone,Last Ride, triangle Choke. Bret usuallyonly used the sharpshooter and taker dosent tap out ever. Undertaker gets my vote

 

[Loveless]

I've already stated why Taker would tap out but nevermind, I'll play along for now.

Hart locks in the sharpshooter
Taker refuses to tap out
Taker's legs are completely fucked after 30 minutes

Just out of interest, the last person who refused to tap to Bret, anyone remember who he was or how that match ended? Steve... something

 

[Dirk]

Remember, this isn't Wrestlemania. Taker is perfectly beatable in this tourney. Sure, he'll "sit-up" once in the match and that would give him the advantage in a 20-minute match, but in an hour? Nah, his legs will be shot.

Also, let's use the ole' "prime" argument as a spare tyre. While Taker was always a top guy, he was never THE guy, like Bret was. Sure, it wasn't wrestling's biggest boom, but Bret was still the face of the company.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

This is a very tough one to call. Bret probably has the superior cardio fitness which will keep him fresher as the minutes tick on but I think I am going to go with Undertaker in this match.

Bret relies mainly on a submission finisher, and Undertaker never taps out. I don't see that changing here. However, the repeated Sharpshooters will weaken the Dead Man's legs, so I do see Bret being able to get a couple of falls here.

But, Undertaker has multiple big moves that can put anyone away- Tombstone, Chokeslam, Last Ride and Hells Gate have all put away the biggest names in the game, and while Bret may be able to find creative ways to get a fall or 2, I think Taker has more than enough ways of getting enough falls to take the win.

Winner: Undertaker 4-2 Bret

 

[SuperSteve16]

This would be a great match between two all time greats and it could really go anyway. Bret Hart has experience in an Iron Man match and regardless of how he won, Bret constantly beat The Undertaker for the championship, which has already been mentioned. Both guys wouldn't go down easy in this match up and their wouldn't be many falls in this match. The Undertaker has never tapped (apart from the did he tap or did he get pin story with Angle) and that gives him an advantage because it would render Brets finisher useless, meaning Bret would have to try different moves to beat Taker. The Undertaker just has so many different moves that He could beat Bret with so my vote goes with The Undertaker in a low scoring iron man match, either 1-0 or 2-1.

Vote The Undertaker

 

[cult_of_icecream_bar]

I'm voting the Undertaker.Don't lecture me about how bret is better than 'Taker and he was in mainevents for many years and so on.I never liked bret.I feel he is more overrated by the IWC than HBK.I don't enjoy his work.But I enjoy UT's work alot.Since WM23,the streak match has made me watch WM at all costs.So my vote goes to Undertaker.

 

[Jomo_mark]

Just a few thoughts:

1) Hart's finisher is the sharpshooter, The Undertaker never taps, as mentioned.
2) His legs are fucked? He'll just sit up and no sell it.
3) 'Taker cannot last the hour? He put on a great match with HHH just last year for about 50 minutes, when he was already old. 'Taker in his prime? No problem.
4) Now that the previous matches play a part, this definitely gives The Undertaker the advantage. His match with Big Show would be much less taxing compared to Hart's match against Orton with a metal object. Doing a one hour match just one week later? 'Taker must be feeling much better.
5) While The Undertaker may have failed to take the belt of Hart multiple times, he did beat Hart by DQ a few times in those matches, which would count as a fall in this match.

Definitely leaning towards The Undertaker.

 

[jmt225]

Bret takes this.

Whether people want to bitch about it or not, the match stipulation is apart of the tournament for a reason and does play a factor. It's very much the luck of the draw, and in this case, The Undertaker got perhaps the worst draw possible in facing Bret Hart in a 60 Minute Iron Man match.

When have we ever seen the Undertaker go 60 minutes? Never even close. And he doesn't have the style where he paces himself... he goes full throttle at all times and there's simply no way he could keep that pace for an entire hour. The guy's basically dead after 30 minutes against HHH and Shawn Michaels... how is he going to last an hour with one of the greatest, toughest, most intelligent and technically sound wrestlers to ever compete? I just don't see it.

'Taker may grab the first pin. As Shocky showed, 'Taker can beat Bret, and he probably would score a pinfall or two here (and that's a big probably as on any given night these two could get the best of each other in a regular one pinfall match), but as the clock ticks, the match leans more and more in Bret's favor, and eventually Bret would be in complete control and take over the match, undoubtedly gaining enough pinfalls and/or submissions to win the match when that clock hits zero.

Now, as far as legacy and each guy's body of work... as much as a fan I prefer Bret's stuff over The Undertaker's, I can't deny that they're still even in that aspect and an argument could be made for either guy. So, it all comes down to who I believe would win this match, and all fan biasedness aside, I sincerely believe Bret would take this one. Luck of the draw...

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Bret takes this.

Whether people want to bitch about it or not, the match stipulation is apart of the tournament for a reason and does play a factor. It's very much the luck of the draw, and in this case, The Undertaker got perhaps the worst draw possible in facing Bret Hart in a 60 Minute Iron Man match.

When have we ever seen the Undertaker go 60 minutes? Never even close.

I wouldn't have brought it up unless I already had but... Undertaker beat HHH last year at HIAC in a match that lasted around 50 minutes and if you watch the match itself, he only gets stronger and more dominant as time goes along. That's Undertaker at like 47. Not difficult to infer that when he was younger he could go for at least as long, and undoubtedly longer. Cardio is not giving Bret an advantage in this match, especially since he lost his only hour long Ironman match.

It's not the whole point but it is important to note.

 

[deem]

Very torn here. My views as a pro-wrestling fan have changed a lot since I stopped regularly watching/loving the product. I find it really hard to define my favourites now, but I know it was a clearly identifiable "Taker and HBK" top two when my interest was peaking. And I've never really liked Hart, which is weird as I tend to value ring work really highly and Bret's undeniably great.

Still, I'll strive to remain unbiased as I have all tournament. I vocally defended Orton to go over Bret last round and Taker is a wayy tougher draw, but I'm still leaning to neither side here.

Some early thoughts.

Longevity is overrated in this tournament - I find it best to just compare prime vs prime. I mean sure, looking at the year Khali was unbeatable pales in comparison to a Hogan who dominated for years - here though, Bret's peak was the WWE ace for around 5 years. Undertaker in his career has accomplished more, but without reaching the #1 bill that Hart attained. That said, I've already stated how overhyped Bret's time at the top of WWF was, so I think being a permanent top 5 guy in multiple eras is enough to match that, if not give the edge to Taker.

Their record against each other matches nicely too - this is undeniably the big stage and Bret is 2-1 up on PPV vs the deadman (that's including the interference finish of S'Slam97). On TV though, Taker is 2-0 up. Including house shows, the overall record stands at 21 for Bret, 25 for Taker with 9 draws. This is a wash. That's probably one of the better records anyone has against Undertaker, but he's one of the toughest to beat in kayfabe of all time so that's hardly surprising.

People say Bret had the tougher previous match - maybe. Orton's vicious and it was hotly contested, meaning he performed to his maximum and definitely scored tons of damage. However, as far away as Big Show was to winning, that is just down to the inevitability of the result. Has anyone wrestled a match with Show on the big stage and not took tons of damage? He's a 500lb monster. He'd beat Taker up before tapping out for sure. Possibly less than Orton with a weapon, not enough to make an argument around.

So it all balances. For me, this comes down to the gimmick. This is where arguments can and should be made, for I have no idea which way to go.

Sure, Bret has experience - there isn't any edge to be gained from that though. Maybe he knows more about pacing a match, but he was only in one and he lost it after over an hour of not being able to put Shawn away. I wouldn't say that indicates any expertise in Ironman matches.

Taker's cardio may be questioned, I think that's fair. He's never gone one hour as far as I know - it's interesting that Undertaker was in the second longest Wrestlemania match of all time though, against Shawn at WM25. Obviously Bret is first on that list vs Shawn at WM12. edit; Aah that article was outdated, his WM28 HiaC was longer by 8s. So that's two 30m performances with no cardio issues WAY past his cardio peak. Mm I'd say he has little doubts going the distance.

Looking at this more within kayfabe - I sorta agree with some of the finisher arguments. If Hart can't submit Taker, he's reliant on making him pass out and roll ups almost exclusively. Hart isn't someone that would bend the rules to attain a victory in his prime, he's not going to introduce a chair to do the damage etc. I can see a scenario with Hart passing out Taker for a fall, maybe multiple falls. I just think that the phenom is perhaps the most resiliant to this form of loss in the history of the sport - he's billed as a super human that can overcome most forms of pain and historically has dug down deep to power through numerous pain barriers. Not ruling it out.

On Taker's side, we have a multitude of finishing manoeuvres each capable of putting a guy away. Sure, the chokeslam might be billed as a secondary finisher now, but 50m into a match with multiple falls it could be good enough. Even discarding it, we have Last Rides, Tombstone's and legal Hells Gates.

It's interesting that each of those finishers is inhibited by any damage sustained to the legs though. Tombtone/Last Rides are reversible into rollups, how many times have we seen "the injured leg couldn't support the move" leading to a fall? Same for Hells Gate, the power would certainly be lessened by battered leg.

I think I'm marginally on Taker's side. I'll give it more time.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

This is tricky, seeing we're going by each man's prime.

Bret's prime was definitely between 1993 and 1997. Undertaker's prime is a different story. Personally, I think it truly began at some point between 2004 and 2005 through right now. You have to go with when that person was at his strongest.

Undertaker owns the only clean victory in the entire one on one series, but that was a good year prior to Bret Hart's prime. Neither man pinned or submitted the other after that. Bret had a win at Summerslam 1997, but that was all Shawn.

The 60 Minute Iron Man Match definitely favors Bret far more than most other match types would, but I'm not sure that's enough, not against Undertaker in his prime.

I definitely prefer Bret, as he's one of my favorite wrestlers, but picking him isn't easy. I'm voting Bret, but I'm not sure it's the right choice.