Who do you prefer: Week Three - Bret Hart vs The Undertaker

Gerard.C

Week One - Stone Cold (49) b Ric Flair (5)
Week Two - The Rock (44) b Shawn Michaels (40)

---

Tis going to be tough enough to keep these as exciting as the first two but I'll give it a lash anyway!

This week it's The Hitman vs The Phenom. Or, you could look at it being pure wrestling vs character/entertainment. Bret is one of the best technical wrestlers of all time, no questions. Undertaker, despite what some may think, is one of WWE's top all time preformers and has arguably the most entertaining character(s) in WWE history.

For myself it has to be The Undertaker. He's been one of my favourites since I started watching and I have never failed to be entertained by him.

Yerselves?

flahavaj

Make this man a moderator or something, legenary work. Great choice again which is sure to divide opinions yet again. I'll have to mull this over for a while.

Bounty Hunter

this will be close but im going to admit ive voted for Taker and have always been a little bit of a Taker mark as he is kinda what defines Pro Wrestling for me... nobody thinks hes actually dead, can summon lightning etc but we dont care cos he entertains us and has had so many great matches/feuds its hard to list em all. For me simply the best character ever in pro wrestling who still probably gets the loudest pops at any show he is at.

I do think Bret was quality though

gimmick

Bret Hart, no question. Never needed a strong gimmick to get over, had continuous good matches throughout his career. In fact, look at hs old matches and they are almost all a highlight reel.

A great face, a great bitter heel, unreal in ring technician,worked well at getting others over, rose through the ranks of the WWF from jobber to tag champ to IC champ to world champ.

No one will ever come close to this mans greatness.

I have nothing against the Undertaker, but feel his deadman gimmick is just old and boring and his matches very formulaic.

Is it possible to make the poll private, so the result is only known when it concludes so as not to influence votes?

Sharpshooter

It would have to be Bret for me but then I am slightly biased.
But I'm basing my decision on his pure technical ability in the ring.

I'm a big fan of Undertakers American Badass character but Bret still gets my vote.

Bounty Hunter

ive a feeling this may be like the last vote many of the vocal PW regs will make the thread sound like Hart (HBK) will easily win but wouldent be surprised to see Taker win the vote.

JP Liz

tough choice but Bret wins for me

Minto

Gotta be Taker, hands down!

Gerard.C

gimmick wrote: »

Bret Hart, no question. Never needed a strong gimmick to get over, had continuous good matches throughout his career. In fact, look at hs old matches and they are almost all a highlight reel.

A great face, a great bitter heel, unreal in ring technician,worked well at getting others over, rose through the ranks of the WWF from jobber to tag champ to IC champ to world champ.

No one will ever come close to this mans greatness.

I have nothing against the Undertaker, but feel his deadman gimmick is just old and boring and his matches very formulaic.

Is it possible to make the poll private, so the result is only known when it concludes so as not to influence votes?

I like this idea! Orestes???

Kane-N-Nite

Undertaker FTW!

Professey Chin

Deadman all the way
I miss the American Bad Ass gimmick though. Gave him a lot more mic time and I loved it

grames_bond

its got to be bret, he could have amazing matches with a mop, the man was a constant profressional with wrestling in his blood, had a wide array of moves and created the matches that we all know and love! Bret could tell a story in the ring, and could tell an amazing one in the time it takes taker to get to the feckin ring! Taker has died and come back to life so many times whereas i never got sick of watching bret, from the original hart foundation to the singles push, he is the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be!

Bret "the hitman" Hart

Bubs101

Taker. He has stayed on top for decades now, something very very few people have ever done and has taken an average gimmick as far as it could ever go not to mention he's the best proffesional in wrestling today, has improved as he's gotten older, never complained when he had to carry the big crap giants in his early years and is the antithesis of a backstage dick

lankysexybeast

it's bret for me. i know this is corny but he called himself the best there is and there was for a reason. his promos wern't the best but i think even the post royal rumble (storylined) screw job shows that he could do them. plus takers promos as are pretty bad as well these days "REST IN PIECE".

for anyone that wants to bring up the actual screw job as they always do with bret. mark and bret got on great around that stuff no matter what version you read, mark even risked his job to force vince out of office on the night.

although taker has been one of the wwe's steady and greatest preformers for years now. i just think bret out-shineds for match quality, entertainment and re watch quality.

rossie1977

hart, undertaker never even had an average match prior to june 1996, it was stinker after stinker, of course mick foley changed all that

the transformation in recent years has been amazing, but he is still prone to having stinkers (series with big show, khali, test etc). hart was a ring general, one of the greatest workers in north american history, legend in both tag and singles, under-rated on the mic, working with hart usually meant getting a rub, win or lose, not sure the same can be said for taker

lankysexybeast

although i should point out that this is painted on my wall

and thats not even the full wall

It's 'Taker for me.

jossnjuice

ive been a taker mark since he beat hogan to win the belt so its taker for me by a long shot,

rate bret as great, ok, but never did it for me . never liked his matches dunno why.

and i did just projectile at the result of the last poll!!!

flahavaj

Decided to go for Bret. I have the ultimate respect for bothe men, but I just can't ignore Hart's credentials as the supreme in-ring technician. He was teriffic in 97 as a heel as well, very believable. His charisma is always undarrated by most.

Taker is like a fine wine, he has matured witrh. However as Rossie said he was awful pre Foley, but I suppose you could blame the era and the gimmick with in the late 80's/early 90's didn't exactly lend itself to 5 star classics, not to mind the terrible opponents that were thrown at him.

In all, Hart takes it for being continuously excellent throughout his career (except for his pretty rubbish WCW run, which was as much the fault of the bookers as anything).

lankysexybeast

flahavaj wrote: »

In all, Hart takes it for being continuously excellent throughout his career (except for his pretty rubbish WCW run, which was as much the fault of the bookers as anything).

That was terrible but just wcw in general they were as bad as tna are now they never knew what to do with anyone it was just more ovious with Bret because they could have done so much

grames_bond

lankysexybeast wrote: »

although i should point out that this is painted on my wall

and thats not even the full wall

show off!!

lankysexybeast

grames_bond wrote: »

show off!!

your just annoyed it's not on your wall with the quotes

grames_bond

lankysexybeast wrote: »

your just annoyed it's not on your wall with the quotes

yes i am!

oh yeah and just so everyone knows LSB here is the one with "heartbreak and triumph" signed by bret:

lankysexybeast

grames_bond wrote: »

yes i am!

oh yeah and just so everyone knows LSB here is the one with "heartbreak and triumph" signed by bret:

thank you for the point out, now i'll point out that it was bonds idea he just didn't hav balls to do it himself

grames_bond

lankysexybeast wrote: »

thank you for the point out, now i'll point out that it was bonds idea he just didn't hav balls to do it himself

LSB hasnt realised that i paid for the book so technically it is still mine!! :pac:

flahavaj

That story never gets old. Legend LSB.:pac:

lankysexybeast

grames_bond wrote: »

LSB hasnt realised that i paid for the book so technically it is still mine!! :pac:

you paid for half the book which i still ow you for actually but you can have everything other than that page gotta admit though i wanted to open the book up to the montreal pages for the signiture but thought it best not to

grames_bond

lankysexybeast wrote: »

you paid for half the book which i still ow you for actually but you can have everything other than that page gotta admit though i wanted to open the book up to the montreal pages for the signiture but thought it best not to

haha you should have opened it to the page where he says "bret wasnt the best wrestler...he was good but not great"

taker is still winning....where is SR when you need him! :pac:

Mr.Nice Guy

These are very good choices I must say. Another tough one to call. It's a case of the ultimate wrestling technician vs the ultimate wrestling character.

I would prefer to watch a Bret Hart match but would probably prefer to sit down and watch an Undertaker promo.

I'll go for Bret though because I think he was one of the best babyfaces ever and while Undertaker could fulfil the babyface role also, I think a lot of this was down to his persona and gimmick. Bret on the other hand achieved a connection with the fans, that still stands to this day, not because of a gimmick or a promo but because of who he was and what he brought each week.

lankysexybeast

i question if more of the younger people will vote for taker because of vince destrucion of brets history for alot of people bret didn't exist till 2006

chopperbyrne

Bret.

He's one of only three people* (that I'm aware of) to get a good match out of Kevin Nash.

That deserves a hell of a lot of credit.

He also had dozens of great feuds over the years. If only he didn't phone in most of his TV matches I'd probably consider him in the running for best of all time.


*The others being Shawn Michaels and Scott Hall.

brick tamland

I voted for Bret. Very close one for me. I was probably swayed by the fact that I've just finished Brets book. Although Bret was consistently the better wrestle but some of Takers stuff in the last few years has been just as good as some of Brets best stuff. Takers had the better storylines i think, but then he did scare the bejesus out of me when i was a kid when he came into wwf

Bret by a whisker

DinnyBatman

undertaker (by the smallest of margins)

Podge2k7

Ha to be Taker for me.I absolutely loved the American Badass gimmick.The Deadman gimmick is gone quite stale now but he still knows how to pull off a classic match(WM 25).So yeah Taker is one of my all time faves and he gets my vote.

Bubs101

rossie1977 wrote: »

hart, undertaker never even had an average match prior to june 1996, it was stinker after stinker, of course mick foley changed all that

the transformation in recent years has been amazing, but he is still prone to having stinkers (series with big show, khali, test etc). hart was a ring general, one of the greatest workers in north american history, legend in both tag and singles, under-rated on the mic, working with hart usually meant getting a rub, win or lose, not sure the same can be said for taker

Of course his series' are going to be bad if he has to work with the likes of Show, Test and Khali. His biggest rival in the history was Kane for crying out loud. Whenever he's put in their with someone semi-decent he comes up trumps

Tricity Bendix

I voted Hart, because Taker was rubbish for his first number of years and because his gimmick is boring. Yeaah, he's been pretty ubiquitous whe it comes to the WWE, and it takes a lot to stay up top for as long as he has. But it comes down to which one of the two I'd prefer to watch. So Bret takes the biscuit.

lankysexybeast

Bubs101 wrote: »

Of course his series' are going to be bad if he has to work with the likes of Show, Test and Khali. His biggest rival in the history was Kane for crying out loud. Whenever he's put in their with someone semi-decent he comes up trumps

know this is slightly off topic sorry mod but i'm re establishing my plee that we refer to kane as the kane the dentist.

flahavaj

Bubs101 wrote: »

Of course his series' are going to be bad if he has to work with the likes of Show, Test and Khali. His biggest rival in the history was Kane for crying out loud. Whenever he's put in their with someone semi-decent he comes up trumps

The point is, Hart came up trumps much more often than Taker when he was in there with pure muck. Examples being guys like Sid and Nash.

grames_bond

lankysexybeast wrote: »

know this is slightly off topic sorry mod but i'm re establishing my plee that we refer to kane as the kane the dentist.

ill second that!!

Bubs101

flahavaj wrote: »

The point is, Hart came up trumps much more often than Taker when he was in there with pure muck. Examples being guys like Sid and Nash.

But people look back fondly on the stuff with Kane. And what about Taker's series with Batista. That is much better than anything Hart did with someone as bad as him and it's not as if Hart handled all the **** guys, Goldberg comes to mind:D

MegaAwesomeOne

For me, this has got to be Undertaker....mainly because I never really got the chance to see Hitman in his prime. I have his DVD and he was brilliant, but Undertaker shades this one.

lankysexybeast

Bubs101 wrote: »

But people look back fondly on the stuff with Kane. And what about Taker's series with Batista. That is much better than anything Hart did with someone as bad as him and it's not as if Hart handled all the **** guys, Goldberg comes to mind:D

sorry i completely disagree bret handle the **** guys far betre and made them look a million bucks. in his early carreer vince used to gives crap guys pushes cause bret made them look class and then they were fired a few months later causw noone else could do the same for those people

look at his match against davey he carried an out of shape (and more) man to give one of the greatest matchs ever

Otis Driftwood

Excellent choice again Gerard.

Taker shades this for me.

Im just waiting for SR! to throw his hat in the ring.:pac:

flahavaj

But people look back fondly on the stuff with Kane.

People need theur heads examining. The Taker/Kane stuff was mediocre at best.

And what about Taker's series with Batista. That is much better than anything Hart did with someone as bad as him and it's not as if Hart handled all the **** guys, Goldberg comes to mind:D

The Taker/Batista stuff was really good alright. But its only one example, in fairness.

With regard to Goldberg, Hart's WCW run is commonly regarded as the low point of his career and there are a lot of outside circumstances that explain this. He had very few great matches in that company.

In general, Taker's best stuff came against good workers, while he was pretty awful against guys that need to be carried. Hart on the other hand, made a career out of making inferior workers look good.

rossie1977

flahavaj wrote: »

In general, Taker's best stuff came against good workers, while he was pretty awful against guys that need to be carried. Hart on the other hand, made a career out of making inferior workers look good.

nail..........head

i ain't going to comment on batista/taker feud because that really wasn't part of my argument (timeframe), remember bret (and shawn) wrestled most of the same guys taker did prior to 96; papa shango, nash, sid etc. While brets (and shawns) matches with those guys were good to great, takers were unwatchable with the same opposition

dlofnep

Hart, slightly. But I like both.

Bubs101

rossie1977 wrote: »

nail..........head

i ain't going to comment on batista/taker feud because that really wasn't part of my argument (timeframe), remember bret (and shawn) wrestled most of the same guys taker did prior to 96; papa shango, nash, sid etc. While brets (and shawns) matches with those guys were good to great, takers were unwatchable with the same opposition

Because Taker is a good wine, he gets better with time

flahavaj

Bubs101 wrote: »

Because Taker is a good wine, he gets better with time

Thats my line bubs Goddamnit! *shakes fist*

Bubs101

flahavaj wrote: »

Thats my line bubs Goddamnit! *shakes fist*

Stole it from Lil Wayne myself

Kess73

Taker for me, mainly because of the longevity of his career and because my memories of Bret's stuff have somewhat faded in my head.

gimmick

I reckon this poll is definitely sport entertainment fans Vs wrestling fans.