Poll Undertaker and Stone Cold matches yay or nay

[mauled]

Seems there is some divided opinion on whether these 2 guys had chemistry in the ring together or not.

Iv seen some saying they were awful together and just didn't click in the ring while Iv seen others list the Sumnerslam 98 match on there top 10 lists.

So what do people think ?

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Summerslam 1998 was their only good match and even that one I never thought was much cop. Especially since Austin's peak was mostly around some of Undertaker's worst ring work.

[zappa]

Fully Loaded 1999 is their best match.

[repomark]

They never really had a five star classic, but I enjoyed Summerslam 98, the buried alive match at Unforgiven 98, the match on Raw were Austin regained the WWF title in 99; and the first blood match at Fully Loaded 99.

Their clashes in 2001 washed over me a little, but that may be more to do with me still being in a strop over the Austin heel turn.

[Deleted]

SummerSlam and the First Blood were good, otherwise their matches tended to be pretty crap. Granted a big part of that is that Taker was just kind of bad in general in the late 90s. Match with Rock at King of the Ring 1999 in particular is just a total disaster.

[chronocross]

I watched the Summerslam 98 match and outside of Taker's crazy legdrop from the top rope through the announcer's table, I thought it was clunky and didn't flow well IMO.

Their series of matches were decent at best.

[Deleted]

Austin said he suffered a stinger early in his SS98 match, which is why it looked so "off". Add to that Taker still suffering from a slew of built-up injuries over time, it just never seemed to get out of second gear.

One of those things where the build was greater than the results.

Not really a fan.

[mauled]

Jul 8, 2017 5:02:23 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

Summerslam 1998 was their only good match and even that one I never thought was much cop. Especially since Austin's peak was mostly around some of Undertaker's worst ring work.

You say that it was his worst ring work but Takers matches with Bret and Shawn in 97 are classics particularly Birmingham 1 Night only with Bret and Hell in a Cell with Shawn while his Wrestlemania match with Kane in 98 was pretty decent enough, so it's not like he was having bad matches and nothing else in that period

[Fade]

They didn't really click. Which is ironic cause in my mark-ass days during the Attitude Era, I thought they were the main two head honchos.

[No Name is needed Bro Beans]

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Jul 8, 2017 9:46:08 GMT -5 mauled said:

Jul 8, 2017 5:02:23 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

Summerslam 1998 was their only good match and even that one I never thought was much cop. Especially since Austin's peak was mostly around some of Undertaker's worst ring work.

You say that it was his worst ring work but Takers matches with Bret and Shawn in 97 are classics particularly Birmingham 1 Night only with Bret and Hell in a Cell with Shawn while his Wrestlemania match with Kane in 98 was pretty decent enough, so it's not like he was having bad matches and nothing else in that period

This is why I said mostly - it was really when Taker began to move into the Ministry gimmick that his work properly spiralled, and prior to that he just had appalling chemistry with Austin.

[abjordans]

I didn't think they clicked as characters or in the ring.

[Jiren]

Mixed

SS98 & Fully Loaded were good, The rest not so much

[thecrusherwi]

I'm kind of in the middle. I never thought any of them, outside of the Backlash 2002 match, were completely awful. Their styles just didn't mesh that well at the time. Taker is best when he can throw people around like a rag doll and Austin's body just wasn't in any condition to take most of Taker's offense. He couldn't take a Tombstone in 98/99 or a Last Ride in 2001/02. Taker would use the Chokeslam as his finish in those matches, and with Austin's knees and neck, he just couldn't get the height like Rock or Brock to make it look good. On the flip side, Austin is at his best when he's running through guys like a wrecking ball with his opponent selling his initial burst and comebacks like crazy. That's why he worked so well with Rock and Foley. Taker's size and gimmick really didn't make that viable.

So all things considered, I think they usually did the best with what they had to work with.

[mauled]

Jul 8, 2017 10:11:59 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

Jul 8, 2017 9:46:08 GMT -5 mauled said:

You say that it was his worst ring work but Takers matches with Bret and Shawn in 97 are classics particularly Birmingham 1 Night only with Bret and Hell in a Cell with Shawn while his Wrestlemania match with Kane in 98 was pretty decent enough, so it's not like he was having bad matches and nothing else in that period

This is why I said mostly - it was really when Taker began to move into the Ministry gimmick that his work properly spiralled, and prior to that he just had appalling chemistry with Austin.

Arghh I misunderstood, I understand now, 👍

[mauled]

Jul 8, 2017 10:31:24 GMT -5 thecrusherwi said:

I'm kind of in the middle. I never thought any of them, outside of the Backlash 2002 match, were completely awful. Their styles just didn't mesh that well at the time. Taker is best when he can throw people around like a rag doll and Austin's body just wasn't in any condition to take most of Taker's offense. He couldn't take a Tombstone in 98/99 or a Last Ride in 2001/02. Taker would use the Chokeslam as his finish in those matches, and with Austin's knees and neck, he just couldn't get the height like Rock or Brock to make it look good. On the flip side, Austin is at his best when he's running through guys like a wrecking ball with his opponent selling his initial burst and comebacks like crazy. That's why he worked so well with Rock and Foley. Taker's size and gimmick really didn't make that viable.

So all things considered, I think they usually did the best with what they had to work with.

For your argument about not being able to use the Tombstone or Last Ride, I'm not sure I agree. Again I say go back and watch his matches with Bret and Shawn and Taker doesn't use either move in either guys matches and yet those matches are still classics. Hell he goes even further (no pun intended) in both matches Taker breaks the Sharpshooter and no sells Sweet Chin Music. They just relied more on psychology and story telling.
He couldn't have done the same with Austin

[thecrusherwi]

Jul 8, 2017 10:52:47 GMT -5 mauled said:

Jul 8, 2017 10:31:24 GMT -5 thecrusherwi said:

I'm kind of in the middle. I never thought any of them, outside of the Backlash 2002 match, were completely awful. Their styles just didn't mesh that well at the time. Taker is best when he can throw people around like a rag doll and Austin's body just wasn't in any condition to take most of Taker's offense. He couldn't take a Tombstone in 98/99 or a Last Ride in 2001/02. Taker would use the Chokeslam as his finish in those matches, and with Austin's knees and neck, he just couldn't get the height like Rock or Brock to make it look good. On the flip side, Austin is at his best when he's running through guys like a wrecking ball with his opponent selling his initial burst and comebacks like crazy. That's why he worked so well with Rock and Foley. Taker's size and gimmick really didn't make that viable.

So all things considered, I think they usually did the best with what they had to work with.

For your argument about not being able to use the Tombstone or Last Ride, I'm not sure I agree. Again I say go back and watch his matches with Bret and Shawn and Taker doesn't use either move in either guys matches and yet those matches are still classics. Hell he goes even further (no pun intended) in both matches Taker breaks the Sharpshooter and no sells Sweet Chin Music. They just relied more on psychology and story telling.
He couldn't have done the same with Austin

To some extent. But also, both guys (especially Michaels) sold for Taker by bouncing around like a pinball. And they were heels, so they could run from him and cheat and the like. Austin was the alpha-male top babyface in most of those matches. He couldn't have sold the same way to make it as exciting and the psychology is different. Austin spends the meat of the match selling and Taker couldn't do as much to him. And then going back to the finishers, because Austin couldn't take a Tombstone or Last Ride, there really aren't as many opportunities for high spots that can get a false finish. Did anyone in World think that Steve Austin at his peak was gonna lose a match after a Chokeslam?

There were just a lot of factors that made it very difficult for Austin and Taker to have matches as good as the Taker/Shawn or Bret matches. Shawn and Taker had the advantage of Shawn's selling and Taker playing the asskicker role (which Austin would play in all of his matches) and Bret/Taker had the advantage of Bret's selling and Bret being a heel (if you remember, Bret and Takers Face vs Face match at Royal Rumble 1996 wasn't good at all).

[MichaelMartini]

Jul 8, 2017 5:02:23 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

Summerslam 1998 was their only good match and even that one I never thought was much cop. Especially since Austin's peak was mostly around some of Undertaker's worst ring work.

Yeah. 1997 Austin vs 2006 Taker would be 5 stars. Love both guys but their feud and matches dragged.

[Nickybojelais]

They had very bland matches. The one with Ric Flair as guest referee in 2002 is without doubt the most boring match I've ever seen. It was 30 minutes of nothing!

[Deleted]

I honestly don't even remember the details of any of their matches right off the top of my head, so they must not have been very good.