The Undertaker is Superior to any wwe superstar from any time.
Debate Rounds (5)
The pro has made the assertion that the undertaker is superior to any wwe superstar from any time period, therefore the pro has the burden of proof to show 100% beyond without doubt that his assertion is true. However, I do not think the pro is capable of doing so because this is truly a matter of opinion. The pro does not list stipulations to this debate, so I am going to argue some facts that is evidence the undertaker is NOT superior to a lot of wwe/wwf superstars.
Fact number 1: The Undertaker has not held the world championship/WWE championship belt the most.
Superstars like Rick Flair, John Cena, Triple H, and a ton of others have held this title regarded to be the most important and biggest title in the wwe. Not only have a lot of superstars held this title more, but they have also held other titles more than the undertaker as well. This cannot be refuted.
Fact number 2; The undertaker works less than most of the other superstars in wwe, even when he was at his peak and healthy enough to compete. Again, superstars like John Cena, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michael's, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and many others have worked more than the Undertaker. Again another fact. John Cena personally busts his butt off week in and week out more than almost any other superstar in wwe history. If the Undertaker was so superior, he would be on Monday Night Raw weekly, and have more pay per views.
Fact number 3: The undertaker isn't even the strongest superstar. There are many in the backstage locker room that can out lift the Undertaker when it comes to weight lifting. I am talking about some of these dudes being able to throw over 600 pounds above their shoulder. John Cena for example gave an F-U/Attitude Adjustment to the Big Show with a other superstar on the Big Show's back and that takes an enormous amount of strength, and I have never seen the Undertaker do that in my eyes of watching WWE.
Fact number 4: Contribution. It's a fact that many other WWE superstars have contributed in ring more and OUTSIDE the ring. John Cena again for example has made the most Make-A-Wish Foundation donation's more than ANY superstar in history, and when was the last time you heard the Undertaker do something of the sort without honest to god having to look it up? Brett Hart would give his shades to a fan every night he came out, and yadda yadda. The undertaker was more so an outsider in that regard.
Fact number 5: The undertakers move set is limited. There are many high flyers and more acrobatic superstars than the Undertaker. Daniel Byran, Jeff Hardy, Shelton Benjamin, and a ton of others are more flashy and can pull of a ton of different moves than the undertaker can. If the undertaker was superior, he could do everything better.
Fact number 6: The undertaker isn't hardcore like Mick Foley.
Fact number 7: The undertaker never won a gold Olympic medal with a broken neck like Kurt Angle who in my opinion has to be the REAL best wrestler out of them all since WWF/WWE is scripted.
It seems to me, the pro is only providing an opinion and making the assertion and there is little to no way he can refute any of my facts I listed and provide 100% evidence the Undertaker is better. It's a fact that everyone likes different wrestlers, not everyone will like the same guy. It's a fact the wwe is scripted on terms of who wins and who doesn't win, and so these accomplishments the undertaker might have is just scripted. He isn't the most versatile, his mic skills are sub par when you go to CM Punk, John Cena, The Rock, Shawn Michael's, and many others.
How can he be so superior if he is weak in a lot of categories and not the best at what he does? He hasn't held the title much than the others, he never shows up for work. I think the pro can only give his opinion and there is little facts he can honestly list off when I listed off a good number of facts, and some of most important facts as title championships, strength capability, contributions in and out of the ring and so forth.
If the pro wants to win this debate, he must set down a framework which will convince everyone reading the Undertaker is superior because as of now, I'd argue Kane even seems better at this point. Not saying I hate the Undertaker, he's cool no doubt, but he is flawed, and of course it's a character with a script to follow just like all the others.
On your first argument you talked about him not holding the titles as much as any superstar, but here's a fact for you, Undertaker is a gimmick I know, you know, everyone knows. A gimmick like his would not have made it this far if you ask me. Now Mark William Callaway plays this character very well. Now let's get back to championships, he has hold many championships in his career, not a lot but here's why, while everyone who was champion fought for a championship that they tried to defend or take, The Undertaker had a more hellacious thing to keep intact, The wrestle-mania streak. Yes it's over but either way that was a 21 days streak hold, witch if you ask me, could equivalent a "reign" that is my opinion yes, but even you can't deny the fact that 90% of the people who watched wrestle-mania watched it for the streak since 1990 to 2014. Those matches were also some of the best in history, (example HBK vs Undertaker Wrestle-mania 25) now was this a championship match? no, The Undertaker does not need a title reign because he is to busy making sure younger talent go for the championship, while him and his character do his own thing.(1)
on your second fact you talked about him not working more than other superstars, ok I agree you don't see him often, but may I remind you, The Undertaker has outlasted every single era of WWE till now. yeah Cena has worked week after week but he hasn't put his body on the line like Taker has since he's step foot on the wwe. Undertaker has also been in More pay per view matches than any WWE superstar 91 wins to be exact.(2) and adding to it 2014 was the only year without an Undertaker victory.(3)
Ok the Undertaker isn't the strongest, but he is freaking durable as hell, Like I said before he has outlasted every single superstar of his time, now let me add that yes Cena did lifted Big Show and Edge on his shoulders, an amazing feat indeed, But Taker for his age is still very strong, at age 42 still he was able to tombstone Mark Henry a man weighing at 485 Lbs.(4) Even now at age 50 he was able to hold up a great match against the Wyatts and he Tombstoned Luke Harper, a man that weights 275 pounds,(5) now I know he's not as heavy as Big show or Henry but Undertaker lifted him up for a tombstone. I want to see if Cena at that age can do these things, and if he does, Cena still hasn't done what taker has done in the previous paragraphs. Even now Taker can dead lift 450 pounds, he gets tired now but he can still do it.
Contributions are a big part of WWE indeed. Now the Undertaker might not be Cena, Reigns or any other superstar that does these things a lot. Undertaker still has done his part, he talked to a little girl and spent time with her and her family(6) That's why he is so great, Cena is John Cena when he talks to children there is no reality to it, does he care sure, bu he goes as John Cena, Undertaker goes as Mark Callaway. He doesn't make it a big deal because he doesn't have to be put on T.V for this, he does it because he cares enough to have that special privacy.
His move set limitless? Ok while you did prove a valuable point using Hardy and Bryan, as well as the others, Undertaker's move set is far from limitless. He is able to adapt to his opponents, not matter their size. one example is him vs Rey Mysterio in royal rumble 2010(7) he was a true monster, he used his size to take on Mysterio, and yes Mysterio is a high flier and quickly but Undertaker was able to study him, and used his big man arsenal, lifting him up and throwing him around because that's what was needed. Now when he goes again't the likes of Great Khali, Big show, Kane or even Batista, he turns his arsenal and becomes more of a high flyer/ technician.One example is him vs Khali last man standing match(8) now limitless? the Undertaker has a variety of moves. Tombstone, Chokeslam, Last Ride, Hell's gates, Old School, Apron Leg Drop, Snake eyes( which has three moves in its own) Flying clothesline, his rebound DDT, and Suicide Dive.
He isn't as hardcore as Foley? no he isn't, but you can't deny that Undertaker has still had his shares of injuries. They might not have been as hardcore's a Foley but they were devastating, and guess what? he's still here and at his age. Undertaker is still a brutal fighter, Foley yes he's brutal, but he spends more time getting hurt than delivering pain if you ask me.
Kurt Angle, wow you got me there, Undertaker hasn't won an Olympic medal like Angle, especially with a broken Neck. Undertaker However has gone through matches with serious Injuries and Won and Like I said, he's still wrestling while Angle is going to the Hall o. I will give you this though Angle is a God.
Undertaker is not The Rock, Punk or Jericho on the Mic, but Might I add that while they talk on the mic they have the fans cheering and yelling, when Taker talks, they stay quiet because the lord of Darkness has that style of power and delivers amazing threatening promos. The fact that you said The Undertaker is flawed beacsue the whole "scripted aspect of it is pretty confusing, due to the fact that WWE entirely is scripted, and they decide who is champion, so on and so forth. You Know what I mean. Now I myself love Kane but let me just say one thing.......Corporate Kane, enough said.
I will give my opponent the floor and see what he can say to counter what I argued. Hoper you are enjoying yourself as much as me, I love talking wrestling.
1. It's a fact the Undertaker has not held as many titles. You couldn't really counter this fact but say Undertaker has held many too. That is not really true. He has only won mostly world titles, he has never really won other titles such as other superstars like Edge, John Cena, HBK, Triple H, Kurt Angle, and just so many more you could list. The only valuable counter argument you made is when you brought up the Undetaker's Wrestlemania streak which ended to Brock Lesnar who by the way is another wrestler with far greater accomplishments as becoming a champion in UFC which takes quite the transition to do. It's worth noting that the Taker lost because his streak would have been that much bigger if it went unbroken but supposedly the Undertaker got injured during the match and could not go on, but none the less, even Stone Cold Steve Austin was able to finish a match when he first broke his neck cause of Owen Hart. That shows you there is a lot of other durable wrestlers far more durable than the Undertaker because I believe he never won a match with a broken neck, but Steve Austin continued to pin Owen Hart (although it looked terrible) and came out. It's my belief the Undertaker should have went on with a terrible pin to win and keep his streak. Also, no one watched him for his streak until it became a serious. No one knew he'd be at 18-0 19-0 and so forth.
If a streak is the best you can come up with, that is still a weak argument because how many titles did the Undertaker win during these Wrestlemania matches? You know Wrestlemania is the biggest stage of them all, and winning a title to me on Wrestlemania is one of the greatest things a superstar can do and Undertaker has barely won any titles on Wrestlemania. Also, he never kept his titles for long. If you going to talk about his streak which quite frankly is his only real big accomplishment, then it's worth noting CM Punk's huge streak of keeping the WWE title for a total of 434 which made him the 6th longest current era reigning champion. To me that is more impressive than a streak because to defend your championship belt without a loss in over a year? The WWE actually allowed that? Punk even made it entertaining as well.
2. You never really did counter argument my 2nd contention but merely stated Undertaker has outlasted every single era until now. This is not going to hold any grounds with me because the Undertaker only shows up once a year and therefore is able to continue longer than some other superstars who are cut short. It's worth noting that Sting, Hulk Hugan still wrestle, and the Rock, and a couple others. The undertaker has not been in the company the longest either if you're going to really talk about being durable. For example, Ric Flair has wrestled over 40 years and is a lot older. In fact, he has won over 16 world titles along with a ton of others.
3. You again could not really make a valid counter argument. You went back to durability which I proved other wrestlers are quite as durable, and some have wrestled way many years longer than the Undertaker. I also said that the Undertaker only works about twice a year or so which allows him to get away with being that durable cause he doesn't take a beating day in and day out like all these other superstars. The only credibility you have on this topic is for Undertaker's size, it's impressive, but that's all. You talked about how great his matches were. Allow me to remind you that the matches he had was usually carried by the other superstar. HBK for example carried the Undertaker on his back to make those matches happen. Brock Lesnar carried undertaker throughout that whole match. In my opinion, HBK made those matches good, and is by far the greater, maybe greatest Wrestlmania eventer ever. He even got the name Mr. Wrestlemania for his brilliant matches. Also HBK while on the subject has made much more memorable matches than the Undertaker has but going back to durability, the Undertaker isn't as durable as you might think, and he plays it safe with his moveset which doesn't put him at risk like others to even top it off.
Lastly, Cena probably could lift Mark Henry still when he gets older, I mean look at the older superstars today. They can still lift huge wrestlers, and still lift heavy weights, so it's more than probable. The Rock is a freaking hulk in that regard.The Big Show is still choke slamming people and this could go on and on.
4. You again could not really counter argue that the Undertaker hasn't contributed the most, but I do respect that you brought that story up. In fact, I read somewhere that the Undertaker a couple years ago along with Paul Bearer were at a restaurant eating. A family saw them sitting there and knew who they were but decided not to disturb them. The undertaker so respected that, he paid fully for the families meal. However, my contention holds that he has not contributed as much as other superstars. it's worth noting that John Cena has even went to peoples houses all BY HIMSELF for sick children. No security guards, no nothing. John Cena has went to peoples houses.
5. Undertaker's move set does have limits. He is not a high flyer like many others. He can not do what Rey Mysterio does. You'd think if he was the greatest ever, he could do everything but he can't. Now Rey can't go out and lift heavy people, it's a trade off, but there are WWE superstars who could lift others well and still be a incredible high flyer like HBK for example. The undertaker isn't as versatile as you make him sound. His moveset is about as stale as John Cena's except I'd argue John Cena at least improvises a little more, but overall, they both usually are so predictable, especially the Undertaker.
6. You never could counter argue Undertaker was more hardcore than Mick, but they both did have in what my opinion is one of the greatest matches of all time at Hell In The Cell where Mick Foley took all the beatings, fell off a cage (supposedly he jumped himself) although the Undertaker said in a interview that Mick told him to throw him off the cage, but none the less, as great as that match was, the Undertaker wasn't the one taking the thumb tacks, falling off the cages and so forth. Yes the Undertaker has had his share of injuries, but that isn't what hardcore is all about. Every superstar has had injuries. The Undertaker hasn't suffered a big threat injury in the ring like Stone Cold Steve Austin who's neck was broken and yet he continued the match. (Worth noting Mick Foley had a tooth sticking through his nose at the end of Hell In A Cell, but was such a warrior, he refused to give up, even after being thrown off the cage, but the 2nd time where he was choke slammed through the cage was unplanned. The cage gave away and yet Foley continued).
7. You couldn't counter argue this either. Kurt Angle by far is a "real wrestler" when he actually competed and won a gold medal. In fact, any wrestler who even transitions after the WWE, and goes to ufc gets my respect like Brock, CM Punk(although he is pretty old and might not do well like Brock did). Going back to Kurt Angle tho, he went to TNA and won over 6 world titles along with others. Again, far more accomplished than the Undertaker, especially outside the ring and here you are saying the Undertaker is truly superior to Kurt angle. What a slap in the face for someone who did the real thing and came on top, even with a broken neck, and again, the Undertaker hasn't really had big injuries such as that, and he has played his career the most safest out of probably all the superstars in which he clearly admitted in a interview a couple years ago in what has kept him going for so long.
8. Another argument by me you couldn't fully counter because the Undertaker is not as good on the mic as others. I do not need to further argue this point because it can't be refuted. Yes, I said the Undertaker is flawed because he is. Granted, no superstar is perfect, and I did say Kane is arguably better but more so because of accomplishments. Feel free to rebuttal this as it might be your only real counter to anything I said. Now you said corporate Kane. Do you like corporate Kane or are you saying that is terrible? I actually think it's cool, and think it's way cooler than Undertaker's American Badass, deadman persona where he came out on the bike. I think most would agree that was not cool as his main persona. You shouldn't fix what's not broken. When it comes to persona's, Mick Foley takes the cake anyways.
So, to me you haven't really presented a good case as to why Undertaker is superior than all other superstars current, and before. He isn't the most well known like the Hulk, Rock, and John Cena, but he is a good superstar, just not superior. He commands respect in ring and backstage because of what he is done. He's looked at as a father figure, and respected by all, but it's safe to say there are many more accomplished superstars than him, even as cool as he may be. Personally, I love HBK the most and Steve Austin, and John Cena for all he has done outside the ring, just everything in general, it's a slap in a face to say the Undertaker is superior. In what category? There is many he fails in. Ric Flair would have to be the greatest performer as well, and now that is someone who is durable and wrestled forever.
https://www.youtube.com... John Cena visting a girl at her home
However, I do want to continue a little and talk more about Kurt Angle and do him justice as he is also one of my favorites I didn't name if you recall when I said I liked HBK, John Cena, Steve Austin and yadda yadda.
https://www.youtube.com... Here you can find his full gold medal match in which he won although it can be looked at as controversial, but none the less, complete deserving. I feel that Angle in his prime could almost out wrestle anyone in the backstage locker room if you were to have real live wrestling matches. By him winning a gold medal, a prize in which people from all around the world try to achieve, it's safe to Kurt is truly amazing. His in ring performance in the wwf/wwe was amazing, and at times just comical and funny. I recall the John Cena VS Kurt Angle rap battle which had to be one of Kurt's funniest moments. https://www.youtube.com... You can find that rap battle at this link.
Sadly Kurt should have been bigger and used more correctly than what he was, but none the less, he still won a good number of titles, was one of the funniest wrestlers around and just entertaining.
I will still say John Cena has probably did the most in and out of ring but that's my personal opinion, even if you dislike Cena cause of his gimmick, he still should be respected for everything he has done. Another thing about Cena is that he currently stands for what's right, the hustle, loyalty and respect thing is good for the children to look up to, something very important today given the world is going to hell, so they need this figure they can look up to, and John Cena has portrayed that good guy hero better than anyone ever has in the wwe in my opinion and I am going as far to say almost portrayed the good guy better than the Hulk himself.
I would suggest watch the rap battle between Kurt and Cena, it is pretty funny, and watch Kurt's gold Olympic match which meant a lot to him, and the US.
No doubt Undertaker will always be memorable, but he is by far not the greatest ever, but at the end of the day, it comes down to an opinion and who you think is the greatest. No matter the accomplishments, someone will always like a different wrestler.
The Undertaker in my opinion is one of the reasons people still watch wrestling though, but I guess we will have to see, I truly hope WWE steps up their game.
Like I said previously, the Undertaker barely works ever. He might be the reason people buy Wrestlemania (now and days, he wasn't the reason they bought Wrestlemania when Hulk, The Rock, Steve Austin, and DX were around) but after that, and when people saw that his streak was becoming a thing, and WWE started to promote the streak heavily making promos about the streak not being broke around his wins of 17-0 or so, then people bought wrestlemania mostly to see if he would win or lose.
It's worth noting that I liked John Cena when he was a heel, whenever he first entered the WWE in the early 2000's. I also love the good guy John Cena and think it fits him best although the rap gimmick was unique. I like many wrestlers tho from HBK, Brett Hart, John Cena, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin(who in my opinion was the most entertaining WWE superstar to ever watch, especially the Steve Austin VS Vince Mcmahon era). I loved the Macho Man, Ric Flair, Ultimate Warrior, did love the Hulk during his good guy stages, and loved many different tag teams like DX, the Dudley Boys, Hardy Boys.
I remember HBK jumping off a ladder ontop of Razor. I remember Owen Hart's tragic accident as I saw it happen that night, and remember reactions of superstars like Jeff Jerret who could barely stay in character, and remember the exact words said on Monday Night Raw by Jim Ross who teared up along with the King ringside. I remember the Godfather and his toe train and just so many memories. I still have to say Steve Austin was the most entertaining and provided a lot of funny memories from the Milk Truck, to attacking Vince in the hospital, to throwing the WWF title over the bridge. I remember DX's funny memories like when they took tanks to WcW and threatened to blow up and shoot the building.
Anyhow, yeah I will agree, WWE isn't the same, will never be the same cause life is ever changing in general. The Undertaker while I like him was not my favorite superstar. I remember when he pulled Kevin nash/Big Daddy Disel or whoever under the ring.
Regardless, Undertaker isn't the reason people watch WWE, and he was not the most entertaining when you compare him to what DX was doing or what Stone Cold Steve Austin was doing. More people watch wwe for John Cena than almost any other current superstars, and almost any superstar in history. Yes, people will still watch wrestling, even without Cena, but that's beside the point.
To recap the debate.
You couldn't rebuttal any of the major points I made from round 1. However, I do respect that you tried and honorably admitted defeat than most people who do not even bother to argue their side and let the machine surrender for them. I used to be one of the biggest wrestling fans, as I said, bought all the pay per views, watched every monday night pre- wwe, and just not the same. However, WWE is always going to be big, and it will hold a place in my heart.
CarlosOcano forfeited this round.
Please vote con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.