The Undertaker is Superior to any wwe superstar from any time.

To be honest, wrestling used to be my favorite thing to watch when it was labeled as the WWF. I do not watch WWE as much, or at all now and days, but seeing you made quite the assertion Undertaker is far more superior than any other superstar current and before, you must prove to us why and I am still not convinced by your arguments and now I will counter them. 1. It's a fact the Undertaker has not held as many titles. You couldn't really counter this fact but say Undertaker has held many too. That is not really true. He has only won mostly world titles, he has never really won other titles such as other superstars like Edge, John Cena, HBK, Triple H, Kurt Angle, and just so many more you could list. The only valuable counter argument you made is when you brought up the Undetaker's Wrestlemania streak which ended to Brock Lesnar who by the way is another wrestler with far greater accomplishments as becoming a champion in UFC which takes quite the transition to do. It's worth noting that the Taker lost because his streak would have been that much bigger if it went unbroken but supposedly the Undertaker got injured during the match and could not go on, but none the less, even Stone Cold Steve Austin was able to finish a match when he first broke his neck cause of Owen Hart. That shows you there is a lot of other durable wrestlers far more durable than the Undertaker because I believe he never won a match with a broken neck, but Steve Austin continued to pin Owen Hart (although it looked terrible) and came out. It's my belief the Undertaker should have went on with a terrible pin to win and keep his streak. Also, no one watched him for his streak until it became a serious. No one knew he'd be at 18-0 19-0 and so forth. If a streak is the best you can come up with, that is still a weak argument because how many titles did the Undertaker win during these Wrestlemania matches? You know Wrestlemania is the biggest stage of them all, and winning a title to me on Wrestlemania is one of the greatest things a superstar can do and Undertaker has barely won any titles on Wrestlemania. Also, he never kept his titles for long. If you going to talk about his streak which quite frankly is his only real big accomplishment, then it's worth noting CM Punk's huge streak of keeping the WWE title for a total of 434 which made him the 6th longest current era reigning champion. To me that is more impressive than a streak because to defend your championship belt without a loss in over a year? The WWE actually allowed that? Punk even made it entertaining as well. 2. You never really did counter argument my 2nd contention but merely stated Undertaker has outlasted every single era until now. This is not going to hold any grounds with me because the Undertaker only shows up once a year and therefore is able to continue longer than some other superstars who are cut short. It's worth noting that Sting, Hulk Hugan still wrestle, and the Rock, and a couple others. The undertaker has not been in the company the longest either if you're going to really talk about being durable. For example, Ric Flair has wrestled over 40 years and is a lot older. In fact, he has won over 16 world titles along with a ton of others. 3. You again could not really make a valid counter argument. You went back to durability which I proved other wrestlers are quite as durable, and some have wrestled way many years longer than the Undertaker. I also said that the Undertaker only works about twice a year or so which allows him to get away with being that durable cause he doesn't take a beating day in and day out like all these other superstars. The only credibility you have on this topic is for Undertaker's size, it's impressive, but that's all. You talked about how great his matches were. Allow me to remind you that the matches he had was usually carried by the other superstar. HBK for example carried the Undertaker on his back to make those matches happen. Brock Lesnar carried undertaker throughout that whole match. In my opinion, HBK made those matches good, and is by far the greater, maybe greatest Wrestlmania eventer ever. He even got the name Mr. Wrestlemania for his brilliant matches. Also HBK while on the subject has made much more memorable matches than the Undertaker has but going back to durability, the Undertaker isn't as durable as you might think, and he plays it safe with his moveset which doesn't put him at risk like others to even top it off. Lastly, Cena probably could lift Mark Henry still when he gets older, I mean look at the older superstars today. They can still lift huge wrestlers, and still lift heavy weights, so it's more than probable. The Rock is a freaking hulk in that regard.The Big Show is still choke slamming people and this could go on and on. 4. You again could not really counter argue that the Undertaker hasn't contributed the most, but I do respect that you brought that story up. In fact, I read somewhere that the Undertaker a couple years ago along with Paul Bearer were at a restaurant eating. A family saw them sitting there and knew who they were but decided not to disturb them. The undertaker so respected that, he paid fully for the families meal. However, my contention holds that he has not contributed as much as other superstars. it's worth noting that John Cena has even went to peoples houses all BY HIMSELF for sick children. No security guards, no nothing. John Cena has went to peoples houses. 5. Undertaker's move set does have limits. He is not a high flyer like many others. He can not do what Rey Mysterio does. You'd think if he was the greatest ever, he could do everything but he can't. Now Rey can't go out and lift heavy people, it's a trade off, but there are WWE superstars who could lift others well and still be a incredible high flyer like HBK for example. The undertaker isn't as versatile as you make him sound. His moveset is about as stale as John Cena's except I'd argue John Cena at least improvises a little more, but overall, they both usually are so predictable, especially the Undertaker. 6. You never could counter argue Undertaker was more hardcore than Mick, but they both did have in what my opinion is one of the greatest matches of all time at Hell In The Cell where Mick Foley took all the beatings, fell off a cage (supposedly he jumped himself) although the Undertaker said in a interview that Mick told him to throw him off the cage, but none the less, as great as that match was, the Undertaker wasn't the one taking the thumb tacks, falling off the cages and so forth. Yes the Undertaker has had his share of injuries, but that isn't what hardcore is all about. Every superstar has had injuries. The Undertaker hasn't suffered a big threat injury in the ring like Stone Cold Steve Austin who's neck was broken and yet he continued the match. (Worth noting Mick Foley had a tooth sticking through his nose at the end of Hell In A Cell, but was such a warrior, he refused to give up, even after being thrown off the cage, but the 2nd time where he was choke slammed through the cage was unplanned. The cage gave away and yet Foley continued). 7. You couldn't counter argue this either. Kurt Angle by far is a "real wrestler" when he actually competed and won a gold medal. In fact, any wrestler who even transitions after the WWE, and goes to ufc gets my respect like Brock, CM Punk(although he is pretty old and might not do well like Brock did). Going back to Kurt Angle tho, he went to TNA and won over 6 world titles along with others. Again, far more accomplished than the Undertaker, especially outside the ring and here you are saying the Undertaker is truly superior to Kurt angle. What a slap in the face for someone who did the real thing and came on top, even with a broken neck, and again, the Undertaker hasn't really had big injuries such as that, and he has played his career the most safest out of probably all the superstars in which he clearly admitted in a interview a couple years ago in what has kept him going for so long. 8. Another argument by me you couldn't fully counter because the Undertaker is not as good on the mic as others. I do not need to further argue this point because it can't be refuted. Yes, I said the Undertaker is flawed because he is. Granted, no superstar is perfect, and I did say Kane is arguably better but more so because of accomplishments. Feel free to rebuttal this as it might be your only real counter to anything I said. Now you said corporate Kane. Do you like corporate Kane or are you saying that is terrible? I actually think it's cool, and think it's way cooler than Undertaker's American Badass, deadman persona where he came out on the bike. I think most would agree that was not cool as his main persona. You shouldn't fix what's not broken. When it comes to persona's, Mick Foley takes the cake anyways. So, to me you haven't really presented a good case as to why Undertaker is superior than all other superstars current, and before. He isn't the most well known like the Hulk, Rock, and John Cena, but he is a good superstar, just not superior. He commands respect in ring and backstage because of what he is done. He's looked at as a father figure, and respected by all, but it's safe to say there are many more accomplished superstars than him, even as cool as he may be. Personally, I love HBK the most and Steve Austin, and John Cena for all he has done outside the ring, just everything in general, it's a slap in a face to say the Undertaker is superior. In what category? There is many he fails in. Ric Flair would have to be the greatest performer as well, and now that is someone who is durable and wrestled forever. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... John Cena visting a girl at her home