undertaker vs, ultimate warrior? who will win?

Answer 1

ultimate warrior was an absolute beast in his prime. he even won over hulk hogan but so did taker, this is an absolute tough one to call but i'm betting on taker simply because taker seems to be the more resourceful wrestler, warrior runs on pure adrenaline while taker is very cunning and will do anything it takes to achieve his ends.

Answer 2

to the people above who says the warrior sucks, i guess it's either you weren't born yet or have not seen him in action...when the warrior was in his prime and when he was on top of his game, prior to his drug addictions,drinking problems and legal problems. He WAS the man!

to beat hulk hogan 1-2-3 is a major accomplishment, the hulkster himself raised the warriors hand to show his respect for the guy! There was even a time when warrior gorilla pressed andre the giant!!!

the undertaker though...he's in a class all of his own, while the warrior maybe a really exceptional talent, taker though is more than a match for him.

they did have a match before, taker was still new in the business being a new entrant in the then WWF, while warrior was already a seasoned veteran, taker got the best of the warrior then so i don't see why taker couldn't take him down again now.

Answer 3

Ultimate Warrior he defeated Hulk Hogan and he can beat the Undertaker.{That would be a really good match}

Answer 4

This one is difficult to respond to because I loved both superstars, and choose i ought to've seen more advantageous of their feud, or perhaps more advantageous as a duo. i imagine Warrior receives the aspect because the more advantageous perfect wrestler decrease back at the same time as those 2 were competing jointly, yet universal, Taker receives the nod because he extra more advantageous strikes to his already wonderful repertoire. The Undertaker had the more advantageous perfect gimmick, fingers down, no longer that Warrior's became undesirable. His became staggering, yet Taker's became that a lot more advantageous perfect. in the early to mid 90s, I say Warrior wins their adventure, per their heritage. Warrior is an overcomer, and each and each and every loss he's ever had (no longer very many, both) were no longer sparkling losses. Undertaker has had his percentage of harder combatants than Warrior (everyday Gonzalez, Yokozuna, Kane, Brock Lesnar). notwithstanding, those 2 have wrestled such extremely some domicile shows, and a pair of stay (or taped) activities. Warrior has gained all of them. Had Warrior stayed in the corporate longer than he did, i'm certain they could've had tremendous feuds, and doubtless a good more advantageous perfect feud than Bret Hart-Shawn Michaels, or perhaps Hulk Hogan-Randy Savage. i'm certain Warrior and Taker ought to've wrestled more advantageous matches on television than they did, and Taker ought to've accumulated some victories over him. bear in mind, Taker became nevertheless starting up his occupation in the WWE, and Warrior became already between the right men, so Warrior became already getting his push. Say if this were the mid-to-previous due 90s, Warrior's skills ought to decline somewhat at the same time as Taker ought to nevertheless get his push. Taker ought to probable get more advantageous wins over Warrior. So, with that being suggested, in case you inquire from me who ought to win if both were of their correct jointly, i ought to assert it really is a push.

Answer 5

Undertaker!!!! Warrior was the worst worker in the buisness at the time. He was so bad in fact they had to take belt off him despite his popularity at the time because he could not work a match. His mike spots were even more of a joke

Answer 6

150% Undertaker.Ultimate Warrior sucks

Answer 7

Dude, the Ultimate Warrior, come on, why not ask who would win between Bret Hart and Gillberg.

Answer 8

100% The Undertaker ...