How Can Some People Say Undertaker Is Better Then Shawn Michaels?

Question

"Undertaker is 15-0 at Wrestlemania!!!"

Yeah, so? That was then. Im not saying that it should be ignored or just put aside, but that has absolutly nothing to do with the fact at how good Undertaker can wrestle today, I find that his matches are some what boring, his entrance is way to long, and he is living off of the hype of the crowd and his WM history.

Undertaker is awesome, but it is time to realize that when it comes to wrestling today, HBK has it in the bag.

Agree or Disagree?

brown1932004 B - There is to somthing that can prove it, look at a todays regular match from Undertaker, then look at one from HBK, HBK's will be more entertaining

Donovan T (TTT) - I understand you, but you are talking abou the past, im talking about the present

Answer 1

They say it because, ultimately, the question of "Who is better?" is an opinion. Even your argument is an opinion.

Answer 2

Because he is a better wrestler than HBK now. HE was 10 years ago and he still is today. Did you even watch the ppv last night? Who do you think wrestled the better match there, I think it was Undertaker. Undertaker is better now because he can still do all his old moves and he has added some submissions to his repretoire. Michaels is still a great wrestler, but he cannot do a lot of the things he could have done in the past due to back injuries etc.. They are both great but Undertaker is better.

Answer 3

I disagree with you.

While people may say "15-0", I look at other, more obvious traits. Unlike Shawn Michaels, Undertaker did not have to go through a phase of maturity in wrestling, as Michaels was a crybaby backstage and had the benefits of being friends with Hall, Nash, HHH, and X-Pac. Also, Undertaker does his job and has put more people over in better fashion than Michaels ever did (and that includes Mick Foley and Kane).

The problem with Undertaker today is age taking its toll and the fact that his rivalries are with wrestlers who are not that skilled (Batista, Mark Henry, Great Khali). In comparison to Michaels on RAW, Kennedy, Orton, Umaga, and others are more capable of putting on decent-good matches.

**The second paragraph addresses the present (right above this sentence).

Answer 4

And what has Micheals done thats so great? If u compare their history Taker has had much more and much better matches. While age is catching up to Taker and his arsenal has decreased. Michaels wrestling skills are nothing special either. Slighty above medacore at best. A good WWE wrestler should live off the hype anyways. Plus Takers entrance is long but its one of the best ever. So overall I completely disagree

Answer 5

Disagree. HBK is a great wrestler but Undertaker tells a story better in and out of the ring and carried a stiff like Batista to a great feud. I'll take Taker but by a small margin.

Answer 6

Disagree...

Ok..Undertaker is 15-0 at Wrestlemania..major accomplishment but he is not a legend only for that...
~He is a 5 time WWE/Heavyweight Champion.
~He has one of the most unique gimmick of all time(in my eyes the best)
~He is multiple time tag team champion and many more(Hardcore e.t.c)
~He has been involved in the first of the following type of matches:
Hell in a Cell
Buried Alive(his creation)
Casket(his creation)
Inferno
The guyz that he has beaten at Wrestlemania most of them are legends...

He has amazing wrestling ability.HBK is awesome too but Taker is 6'10 and 300+ pounds for god shake!!Name one another in Taker's size that he is so good striker and ath;etic combined at the same time!
Who in Taker's size can do a suicide diving from in ring to outside of it??
He has 2 of the best finishers ever..Tombstone and Last Ride..
His regular moves are that damn good and he is quick for his age and his size...He is a good submissioner too(not that much but decent)

He is in the WWE for 17 consecutive years..HBK is here a long time but you can't forget te fact that at Royal Rumble 1998 against The Undertaker in a casket match HBK hurt his back so badly and he lost 4 years recovering and making appearences as commisioner e.t.c

Undertaker is maineventing more years than HBK.Taker is maineventing form 1991 and HBK from 1994-1995 and never became boring neither as the Deadman nor as the Bad @ss!!

Furthermore,Undertaker is not living by the hype of his Wrestlemania streak like Goldberg did for his WCW Winning streak.I know that some people building hype for Taker like that but what if the same people has stopped building hype for HBK as The Showstopper??

I am not sure that The Undertaker is better than HBK.They are both on my top 10 list but i honestly believe that i can easily say that Undertaker is better than HBK without being afraid of getting bashed.Same for the opposite..

Both athletes have great amount of charisma,both athletic but i believe that The Undertaker is a little bit better(slight difference)..

HBK and Taker are still being two of the top athlete in the entire Wrestling community even if they are older.

I agree though,that his entrance is long and sometimes make it boring for not big Taker's fan..but to tell you how i feel..i don't care for his big entrance..i'm enjoying every single moment of it...

edit:Also,what makes you think that The Undertaker is worse than HBK nowadays??To tell you the truth it is logical that both these athletes are not like they were but The Undertaker is somewhere close in the level he was..HBK after the 1998 injury and his return in 2002 is not the same HBK we used to enjoy..he is still that damn good though.

As for now,Undertaker still is that damn awesome and find new ways to winning matches(Triangle Choke).He is still too much powerfull and athletic.I don't see it that he is boring or worst than Michaels...

Besides i disagree with you,it was very very interesting Question(as you can realise from my answer!!LOL)...

*starred*

Answer 7

ill agreee with you on the wrestling part. HBK is a better wrestler now. Both are old and past their primes but shawn would get the cake for best ring skills right now. I like undertakers overall gimmick better but based on pure ring skills shawn wins.

Answer 8

I agree with you on the Undertaker side, but the HBK side is off. I don't think he has it in the bag, but Triple H does. HHH is loads better than Shawn, and it is easy to see.

Answer 9

With all respect to u bro Undertaker is one of a kind and quite possibly the best ever

Undertaker rules

Answer 10

WM 26. It did no longer get plenty hype sence they made it what 2 weeks in the previous WM? even though it introduced. I cherished that ending. I cried at it, it became extremely unhappy. Shawn tried so no longer ordinary and at some factors interior the experience, i became like "Holy crap, Shawn would desire to win this!!!" So yeah, WM 26, good question.

Answer 11

I agree with you, Undertaker is better, then it's Shawn Michaels.