Whos Better? Round 1 Match 24

Next Up

The game HHH takes on the Deadman the Undertaker

HHH
Former WWE Champion
Former World Champion
Former Intercontinental Champion
Former Tag Team Champion
2002 Royal Rumble Winner
Main Evented 6 Wrestle Mania's

Undertaker
Former WWE Champion
Former World Champion
Former Tag Team Champion
Former Hardcore Champion
2007 Royal Rumble Winner
Main Evented Wrestle Mania 24 and 26
Undefeated at Wrestle Mania

I'd love to know how the seedings were decided for this

HHH he's more talented all round than Taker imho, even if I prefer Taker as an act

Round 1 Match 24? Jesus Christ, at this rate we may be able to vote on the final by 2015... Hopefully!

Going to make a guess at their being 32 matches in round 1, 16 in round 2, 8 in round 3, 4 in round 4 and then the final.

I think that's fair enough.

Shall we just skip the opening rounds and have the CM Punk v Daniel Bryan final?

Price Check On Jackass wrote:Shall we just skip the opening rounds and have the CM Punk v Daniel Bryan final?

We could but apart from the fact we have to take in to consideration the luck of the draw, the troll voting and the fact that guys like Ambrose and Sami Zayn (if he's in it will get big voting numbers too)

xviperx wrote:

Price Check On Jackass wrote:Shall we just skip the opening rounds and have the CM Punk v Daniel Bryan final?

We could but apart from the fact we have to take in to consideration the luck of the draw, the troll voting and the fact that guys like Ambrose and Sami Zayn (if he's in it will get big voting numbers too)

You said troll voting and then people voting for Ambrose or Zayn over Punk or Bryan like they would be different things?

Tbh, as much as we've mocked Nick, (perhaps a little unfairly as he's just being thourgh) this is a genuinly intresting contest, I like Taker better but I think he's less talented than HHH in most if not all areas.

By the looks of the voting 10 people disgaree with me, but no one has said why.

Perhaps that'd be a better use of this competition than moaning?

I went HHH - I find Undertaker a bit one dimensional

i went undertaker, has been a top guy for over 20 years in WWE thats a hard thing to do. Also has changed gimmick to keep fresh. He was also WWF champ when being champ meant something and there was only one title.

I agree that HHH has more talent i just think what taker has acheived and longevity etc makes him better

This is tough so I have gone with who I prefer - always been a huge HHH fan since '97 so I am going for him.

I went for HHH due to the fact that his recruitment process really has given me hope for the future of the WWE. Also he was part of the first proper/full PPV that I ever saw so I'll always remember the match.

Royal Rumble, street fight against Cactus Jack.

Aye HHH for me as well, guy might not be everyones cup of tea but I think he's been incredible. Can work a crowd, good in the ring and a sweet finisher

I always felt Taker was very much one dimensional on the microphone and depending on what story he was in decided whether he was booed or not, wereas HHH can have the crowd in the palm of his hand one minute and baying for his blood the next

Where "n" is the value of the total votes HHH is getting. "n" people are wrong

Undertaker is a great. HHH is outside of that pantheon. I like HHH, but arguably he is more one dimensional. His character for heel or face is the same guy in most respects and I think there are actually more differences to how Taker acts in his role.

He also completely reinvented his image for a period and was extremely popular with it.

HHH tries desperately hard to work the crowd but isnt likeable, whereas Taker is an effortless legend who gets the crowd involved by being who he is.

And the last of the age of the gimmicks, the most enduring of all. Hes been true to his role as long as hes been in the business, treats the business with more respect than HHH too, and thats why I think his mic work has never gone wildly off in any direction. Theres a character that he is and he portrays it, he sticks to the old fashion rules of kayfabe in that sense in a way that others dont. And thats before even commenting that HHH has probably never done any "great" mic work either.

He even did better work with Shawn Michaels than HHH could ever do. All this without ever being the knut that HHH was in his earlier days and arguably still has overtures of being.

I even think his ring work has more variety. He is a big man who can play that power role but I dont think he could ever be labelled a big man in its own sense cos he is such a good worker.

And I think there is more impact working with Taker now than working with HHH now. This Curtis Axel stuff is fine, but I see nothing that will do wonders for him long term, yet Taker has come in and I think been a catalyst for big things for Daniel Bryan.

Both have been guilty of squashing, but I think one was by design and one by necessity. HHH wanted to beat these people, Undertaker the character was a yardstick.

I also think HHH gets too much credit for backstage stuff. Hes been in that position a good while but its become a recent trend of anything good happening must be a HHH move and anything bad must be a Vince move. Plus I dont think its relevant.

Theres a reason Taker will go down as one of the greatest of all time and HHH wont, and the reason is he is "better"