ROUND ONE: Undertaker (1) vs. Kane (8)

[Everlong]

The Ultimate Wrestler Tournament
ROUND ONE: Undertaker (1) vs. Kane (8)

They were loving brothers, sometimes. Other times not so much. But these two have had their fates intertwined throughout the majority of their careers, and it all culminates in this: ROUND ONE OF THE PTF ULTIMATE WRESTLER TOURNAMENT! Which Brother of Destruction will escape the unquenchable fires of elimination?



Undertaker is far more than a streak of WrestleMania victories; he's the WWE's longest tenured star, a man who has wrestled everyone from Hulk Hogan to CM Punk and everyone in between. He's the last link to several bygone eras of wrestling in the WWF, and a reminder of the imaginative, over-the-top gimmicks created in the 90s. Regardless of how his streak ends, long-time fans will forever remember him for an endless list of huge matches and extreme versatility in his gimmick to switch to the Biker character.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

*WWE World Heavyweight Championship (x3)
*WWF/E Heavyweight Championship (x4)
*WWF Hardcore Championship (x1)
*World Tag Team Championship (x6)
*WCW World Tag Team Championship (x1)
*Royal Rumble Winner (2007)
*5 Star Match by The Wrestling Observer (x1, vs. Shawn Michaels Badd Blood 97)
*21-0 at WrestleMania

NOTABLE MATCH



NOTABLE SEGMENT





Though Kane started his career in his brother's shadow, he has portrayed many variants of the character over the years and has long since carved out a name for himself in WWE annals. Heel or face, masked or unmasked, degenerate demon or corporate puppet, Kane has done it all, and he's done it all really well. One has to consider him to be among the most valuable stars WWE has had on its roster over the past 15 years.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

*WWF Championship (x1)
*World Heavyweight Championship (x1)
*ECW Championship (x1)
*WCW Tag Team Championship (x1)
*WWE Tag Team Championship (x2)
*WWF Intercontinental Championship (x2)
*World Tag Team Championship (x9)
*WWF Hardcore Championship (x1)
*Money in the Bank Winner (2010)

NOTABLE MATCH



NOTABLE SEGMENT





CAST YOUR VOTE!

[xgamr]

It's undertaker. its sort of close but overall it goes to taker easily

[Everlong]

Yeah, gotta be Taker. Kane was mostly brought in to be a prop in Undertaker's story. Obviously he became more than that, but yeah, this one is kind of a no-brainer.

I have a feeling we're going to get two blowouts today, so I may throw up a third topic that will generate more discussion.

[Messiah]

It really is remarkable how much The Undertaker has improved in his career. I went back and watched his performance in the 1992 Royal Rumble and he was just terrible. If anyone ever fit the "Five Moves of Doom" bill, it would be The Undertaker from then and you could hardly consider them moves. I don't know what time period exactly he began to show steady improvement but it is a good thing he did.

I will tell you, 2003 Kane is so underrated it is ridiculous. I say this because, for years, people used to moan so much about how Kane had been ruined because he lost his mask. It spread on every wrestling forum you could think of until he got it back in 2011, which I admit was a good moment. But 2003 Kane without the mask might actually be the best Kane we have ever gotten. He was truly everything a monster should be. Someone who just destroys everything in his path and cannot be stopped. Shane O'Mac was the perfect opponent for him around then too because Kane was the maniac who legitimately wanted to hurt you and Shane was a daredevil at its truest form. I really think they ruined that Kane by having him be made to look like a bitch to The Undertaker at WrestleMania XX and he lost his intimidation factor during the build-up. Had they continued to make him look like a dominant force (not necessarily saying he should have beat The Undertaker, although the streak wasn't really THAT big at the time, but he should have still been made to look like a beast; he lost in like 7 minutes), he could have become a huge heel.

It's The Undertaker for me for whatever it is worth (I nominated him), but I do think/wish Kane's career had turned out a lot different. He could have been huge from 2003-2005. Then again, he did still have some entertaining moments/feuds and was a part of RAW that you liked to see before his face turn in early '05 (or whenever he and Lita began to get along). Kane/Lita was... interesting.

[ShaneOfan]

This is harder for me then it probably should be. I mean the Undertaker is well the Undertaker. A living legend and one of the biggest names in the business ever. But Kane is nothing to shake a stick at himself. They are pretty evenly matched in the ring and honestly on the mic as well. I think Kane take the advantage in versatility. His character has been everything from an evil crazed mute to a hugging monster to a suit wearing goon. Plus he has held the tag team titles 12 times with Taker, Mankind, Hurricane, RVD, Big Show, and Daniel Bryan. With all of those he adapted his character a bit to mend with his partner. Undertaker has only ever really been a Zombie or a Biker. But Still Undertaker is such a legend in the business and had done so much. He has held the biggest championship in the WWE 7 times as well as six runs with the tag team belts. Plus the streak can't be ignored. The one thing Kane wins for sure is the "Before they were famous" Undertaker was a college basketball player, Kane taught Third Grade. But yeah Taker has to get the edge.

[The Legend]

Kane has made plenty of great contributions to the world of wrestling, no doubt, but this is so ridiculously simple. The fact is the wrestling business has only ever seen one true original. One guy that can never be ripped off and re-created. One guy that we will never see anything like him again and that's the Undertaker. He wins this round hands down.

[VaderBomb]

The Undertaker is better than Kane.

[Viazon]

Gotta give this one to The Undertaker. Kane has been great throughout his career and at times, he has been one of the best at cutting promos. He put in emotion and passion into his promos that very little others could do. But Undertaker is just legendary. And the fact that he can still go in a match, albeit only part time these days, is impressive.

[BSM]

I like Kane. He's awesome. Unfortunately for him, his opponent is a legend in the business.

[Tom]

Without going into much detail, I will also go with the most obvious option and pick The Undertaker.

Kane has had a solid career. Along with Mankind, he is one of the 'monster' characters that actually managed to do something outside his feuds with The Undertaker. He won world championships, had some entertaining matches and was useful in any position on the card for quite some time.

However, he has nowhere near produced some of the legendary matches or feuds that his on screen brother has. Kane's most memorable and entertaining feud will always be his one with The Undertaker. Meanwhile, The Undertaker has had numerous matches and feuds which have lived up to his one with the Big Red Machine (HBK, HHH, Mankind, Austin, Yoko, Angle, Bret, Batista, Edge to name just a few). I also feel The Undertaker that Undertaker was able to change his character multiple times to be at a main event level more so than his brother as well.

So for those reasons, I choose The Undertaker in this round!

[Kirbi]

Gave it to Kane on account of how I find the Undertaker to be pretty boring.

[AkydefGoldberg]

Sadly, the character of Kane was created to enhance the Undertaker rather than to create a new character for the sake of it.

Kane has been one of the most under-appreciated guys in the WWE - done everything that has been asked of him - including the Katie Vick angle - and I remember his 2011 run as a heel and his feud with Taker that was neat and showed how he could play the heel role so demonically.

But Taker, despite his recent downward trajectory, is a legend. His evolution has been amazing and it's sad to see him receive criticism - rightly so IMO - because it seems to be affecting his legacy for me.

[Hanley!]

Poor Kane. He could not have been paired against a worst opponent. I mean there are plenty of wrestlers who were far better than the Undertaker, but this match is basically pitting Undertaker against Crap Undertaker. There was only ever going to be one winner.

I'm tempted to give it to Kane just for his versatility, being more of a work horse, not having as stupid a gimmick and actually putting people over.

But when you look at who had a better career, it's impossible to go against Undertaker. At his best, he's much better in the ring than Kane (though at his worst ... yikes). He was briefly better on the mic than Kane too back in the Big Evil days. And he's just had more entertaining feuds and stories over the years.

Kane has had a pretty terrible career, in spite of how long he's been around. They always seem to use him for their craziest or stupidest angles. He's changed between face and heel so many times it's impossible to take him seriously as either. He's been involved in far too many Wrestlecrap moments for someone who could have legitimately been a big star. He's still a good performer and he seems like a great guy. But WWE always treated Undertaker with too much respect and Kane with too little.

Voting for Undertaker here.

[Str8Shooter]

Another first round TKO. Undertaker all the way.

I don't think Taker gets the credit for changing to match the times. Well at least up until his recent run of returns where he just plays the Undertaker character for nostalgia's sake more than anything. But he went from a no-selling, non-talking monster who barely sold anything or even went down, to a more human character in the early Attitude Era, then to a demonic cult leader in the Ministry, into a badass biker, a more normal heel, then face, and then back to the deadman character. That's some serious range as a performer.

Kane's had a damn solid career, and has made the most of it. But like others have said, his list of memorable matches isn't nearly as long as Takers, and his face/heel, mask/no mask switches have hurt him dearly. It's funny how in Taker's early days he was stuck working with a lot of big lugs who sucked, and having goofy storylines, then once Kane came along Taker got better and Kane has often been stuck in the goofy storylines.

[Hanley!]

I don't think Taker gets the credit for changing to match the times.

I almost burst out laughing at that line, but in fairness you did qualify it afterwards.

His growth as a character for the first half of his WWE run made the last decade all the more frustrating. 10 years of complete character stagnation is an awful lot - that's done a lot to sour me on him as a performer and is the main reason I'll vote against him when he's facing tougher competition.

[Str8Shooter]

I don't think Taker gets the credit for changing to match the times.

I almost burst out laughing at that line, but in fairness you did qualify it afterwards.

His growth as a character for the first half of his WWE run made the last decade all the more frustrating. 10 years of complete character stagnation is an awful lot - that's done a lot to sour me on him as a performer and is the main reason I'll vote against him when he's facing tougher competition.

Yeah I meant more during his first decade in WWE, he actually played quite a few "Taker" iterations during that time when you think about it.

Since his 04 return there hasn't been any character development though.

[SortaCreative]

I don't think Taker gets the credit for changing to match the times.

I almost burst out laughing at that line, but in fairness you did qualify it afterwards.

His growth as a character for the first half of his WWE run made the last decade all the more frustrating. 10 years of complete character stagnation is an awful lot - that's done a lot to sour me on him as a performer and is the main reason I'll vote against him when he's facing tougher competition.

Yeah I meant more during his first decade in WWE, he actually played quite a few "Taker" iterations during that time when you think about it.

Since his 04 return there hasn't been any character development though.

Which is now ten years so....

[Str8Shooter]

I don't think Taker gets the credit for changing to match the times.

I almost burst out laughing at that line, but in fairness you did qualify it afterwards.

His growth as a character for the first half of his WWE run made the last decade all the more frustrating. 10 years of complete character stagnation is an awful lot - that's done a lot to sour me on him as a performer and is the main reason I'll vote against him when he's facing tougher competition.

Yeah I meant more during his first decade in WWE, he actually played quite a few "Taker" iterations during that time when you think about it.

Since his 04 return there hasn't been any character development though.

Which is now ten years so....

So you choose to think the last 10 years work against his case, I think the first 12 work in favour of his case.

[SortaCreative]

I don't think Taker gets the credit for changing to match the times.

I almost burst out laughing at that line, but in fairness you did qualify it afterwards.

His growth as a character for the first half of his WWE run made the last decade all the more frustrating. 10 years of complete character stagnation is an awful lot - that's done a lot to sour me on him as a performer and is the main reason I'll vote against him when he's facing tougher competition.

Yeah I meant more during his first decade in WWE, he actually played quite a few "Taker" iterations during that time when you think about it.

Since his 04 return there hasn't been any character development though.

Which is now ten years so....

So you choose to think the last 10 years work against his case, I think the first 12 work in favour of his case.

I'm just saying. Ten years is a long time for someone who was heralded for changing with the times.

I voted for Taker too!

[Str8Shooter]

^^^

Well to be fair the last 5 years he's barely been around anyway.