SCF Tournament, Round of 32 - The Undertaker vs. Roman Reigns

[Slyfox696]

The following match is scheduled for one fall. The match is held in San Antonio, TX and is a Round of 32 matchup. All seeds represent overall tournament seeding.



https://steelcageforums.com/tourney/pics/undertaker.jpg


https://steelcageforums.com/tourney/pics/romanreigns.jpg



#9 The Undertaker

vs.
#24 Roman Reigns






The discussion period will last for two days, followed by two days for voting. You may vote for whomever you feel deserves to win this match. Please post your reasons below if you wish.

[Echelon]

As far as I'm concerned, Roman Reigns defeated the husk of the Undertaker at Mania 33. The Streak had been broken. Undertaker at that point was just a stepping stone for Reigns to make him look like an equal to Brock Lesnar going forward; at least on paper. I feel that Reigns hasn't done enough to distinguish himself. Not yet. And that really isn't even his fault. He's arguably the most inconsistent booked would-be main eventer in history. I cannot count the number of times his booking has seemed botched over the past 3 years. And Reigns is not the first major champion to be pushed that fans were split on. John Cena, Bob Backlund, Dory Funk Jr., and Danno O'Mahoney were all in the same boat too. WWE has tried putting Reigns in the backseat of the card for the past 2 years, to try and get him to cool down a bit. And now they're trying to place him in the drivers seat again. In what should be his coronation as the top star in the company. And there's quite a few fans that still aren't sold on it.

Despite that, Roman is still very popular. His drawing power on the house show circuit has increased. He's one of WWE top merch movers. And his Youtube videos are among the most viewed. There are plenty of fans that like Roman Reigns. And yet despite beating Undertaker, despite beating Cena, despite beating Triple H, Randy Orton, and Daniel Bryan he still doesn't feel like the face of the company. How he's portrayed. Maybe that all changes after this Sunday. Maybe not.

Undertaker on the other hand as never been the face of the company. In the sense that he's the top dog. He's the champion. He's the primary moneymaker and headliner. He's been a special attraction. The greatest one that WWE has had since Andre. And while Taker took a backseat to Rock, Austin, Hogan, Cena, and Triple H, he was still seen and portrayed and booked as being as important as those guys.

I'll take 20+ years spent as a top attraction against 2-3 years spent as an inconsistent main-eventer that WWE can't make up their minds about. Voting Undertaker.

[Fallout]

This is legitimately a really hard match to call.

On the one hand, you have The Undertaker, a living legend, the one constant from the early 90's WWF to today's WWE, the closest you can get in wrestling to immortality. His impact is undeniable, his dominance, though a little shaky at times, has never truly been in question, and his Streak, even if broken, is still something special and dear to virtually every wrestling fan.

On the other, you have Roman Reigns, the upstart, the next face of the company, a tidal wave of dominance at his peak performance, and whilst his mixed reception and lack of tools that the likes of Cena, Austin and Hogan had make him easily the worst #1 guy in WWE history, he's still the #1 guy, in a roster stacked with talent and big deals.

But who would win? Despite Undertaker's loss to Reigns at Wrestlemania last year, I actually think Undertaker scrapes this out. The Streak was when Undertaker was at his most powerful, and had the most to prove and lose, and against Roman last year, he had nothing really to lose. If Lesnar hadn't had beaten Taker, and the streak was still ongoing, I don't think WWE would have the balls to actually have Reigns end the streak, Undertaker at his most powerful. They had to have Rollins cash in at Mania 31, and The Streak transcends the WWE title in 2015, even if it was held by the man who conquered the streak. In terms of accomplishments, I don't think Reigns quite has the credentials to end the Streak; the only reasons Lesnar did was that it was a major surprise, and he could roll with it. While I could buy Reigns rolling with breaking the Streak, the tournament doesn't operate on "surprise logic." You vote who you think will win, not what you think will be a huge surprise; we're not fantasy booking here.

I'm open to a case for Roman, but Taker has my support for now.

[Spidey]

Roman is everything a promotion could want from top tier talent. Sex appeal, check. Skill, check. Charisma, yeah check that shit right off because he's made even the most vanilla of lines work for him. Dude will definitely eclipse Undertaker at some point, guaranteed. But if I stacked their legacies right next to one another, Undertaker's pile is definitely higher. This is a man who has made being a zombie work. Everybody that he faces is automatically the bad guy. There is just something with The Undertaker that, even with a piss break of an entrance, silly sound effects and light tricks, and sluggish ring skills even in his prime, makes fans go absolutely nuts. He's someone that has appealed to the impossible more than any wrestler I know for sure. Even without the longest winning streak on the biggest stage in pro wrestling, his career has more highlights than I could possibly count. A character that has been and will be imitated for many years to come, but never duplicated.

Even Roman comes off like another superstar we know sometimes. Taker is a rarity. Vote Taker.

[Big Nick Dudley]

Roman beat Taker far past Taker's prime. Reigns is dominant, so was Undertaker. If you put them against one another in the prime of each man's career, for one match, I have to go with Undertaker.

[Gazprom]

What has Roman Reigns actually done? He's had a few good matches, but not as many as the Undertaker. He's had a lot of resources ploughed into him. And he's had several possibilities for iconic moments, but he's never come close to actually making them so. There's something about Reigns which is failing to resonate, and it is not just as simple as being the chosen one. Undertaker was given the hokiest of characters imaginable - an undead southern mortician who's power comes from an urn. That's far more ridiculous than other early 90s staples like the Repo Man, but yet he managed to make it work. Undertaker should have been finished after the Hogan feud, but he kept going. For the best part of 30 years. Undertaker took the ridiculous and made it sublime. Reigns has been given the sublime and made it mediocre. Absolutely no challenge here.

[Dave]

If The Undertaker face Roman Reigns 10 years ago, when he was having 5 star matches with Shawn Michaels, then he would never have lost to Roman Reigns. The Undertaker is a bonefide legend in the ring but Reigns hasn't done nearly enough yet to seriously be considered here.