Goldust vs. Undertaker

[goodhelmet]

Undertaker has the big time main events. Goldust has some great Midcard stuff going on. Both have had their share of embarrassments.

[Matt D]

Where did this comparison come from?

[goodhelmet]

My head

[tim]

Dustin easily. Taker had a good year in 2008 and has been a decent hand in certain big matches but he's never had the level and consistency of quality as for example 2009 ECW Goldust, to say nothing of early 90s WCW Dustin.

[KrisZ]

Dustin is awesome but I'm a mark for the Taker WM spectacles plus the early Taker gimmick was one of my favorites so I went with him.

[El-P]

Dustin wins easily to me, on the strenght of his WCW run alone. Taker's big time main events have been ridiculously overrated over the years.

 

My two favourite WWF gimmicks too, I *loved* them back in 1996. I got tired of Taker eventually, and Goldust sadly got toned down way too quickly, but they have been the best productions of the WWF machine in term of pure comics character. Best music themes, best light shows etc...

[kev72]

Both of these guys are great. I loved Dustin's WCW run too, Taker wins for me cause he is so agile for a dude that's 6'11 Taker's agility on the ropes was unbelievable for a guy his size.

[Superstar Sleeze]

Where did this comparison come from?

Clearly it stems from their bitchin' 1996 feud, which featured probably the greatest sentence ever uttered, "Is that Embalming Fluid No. 5, I smell?" Goldust from his debut to about when he drops the title to Ahmed is one of the best gimmicks they ever produced. I am abstaining for now until I can think this one out a bit more. At first it seem like Taker in a walk, but then you realize how fuckin' useless he was until about 1996 and how good Dustin was from about 1992-96.

[WingedEagle]

I'm with KrisZ in that Taker at Mania and similar big matches is pretty tough to beat. I'll take those spectacles over Dustin any day. On the other hand, if I have to watch 100 matches of either guy I'm taking Dustin pretty comfortably as he's got a lot more rewatchable depth between the WCW years and Goldust eras. Fortunately I don't see that choice presenting itself anytime soon.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Dustin by a million miles. Most of 'Taker's most highly-thought of matches are overrated, and even with all the booking advantages in the world he couldn't match the consistency of Goldust.

[MJH]

I voted Dustin, but I do think some people are giving Taker a short thrift. Whilst it's true that Taker has had many advantages - and not just the WrestleMania thing (I agree on the Shawn/Hunter matches being overrated by many, but I thought the Batista match was ideal and need to re-watch the Edge match which I really liked at the time) but Taker's size, too, made something like his matches with Bret much more obvious and easy than Bret/Dustin would've been - he's also a much better "big man" worker than anyone else in the "near 7'" bracket that I can think of right now.

 

My position is the same as Jastrau's really, in that, if I were to have a Top 20 matches involving either guy, Taker would probably feature more than Dustin, but, as the size of the comp increased, Dustin's % would rise exponentially and by the time we got to 100/more he'd have a clear advantage.

[goodhelmet]

I expected this one to be close and I want to see more discussion.

[Jetlag]

I went with Goldust mostly for his early career. No way I would watch more than a handful of Pre-MMA Cowboy Taker matches in a row, while Dustin Rhodes is seriously underrated and WWF Goldust has stuff like the Lawler match. I think they're kinda similiar later in their career, game old dudes with weird gimmicks who weren't afraid to slug it out, Taker has longer matches, but Goldust has a better punch and that awesome signature bump. I also think Goldust was less limited in his role, Taker is always Taker, I remember matches where Goldust would take a green worker to school, slug it out with another vet, or deliver a really good babyface performance like last monday.

[Exposer]

I picked Dustin. I think he beats Taker pretty comfortably but it's not a blow out.

 

Pros for Dustin: Dustin's 1992-1994 work alone is outstanding. I didn't give him the nod for just that though. There are a few years in the WWE where he has been tremendous as well. In 2002 his tag team with Booker T was the best thing on WWE television arguably for the entire year if one wanted to add in the hilarious skits. He performed exceptionally in those tags and was oftentimes the best guy in them. 2009 was of course another big year from Dustin. His matches with Regal and Sheamus were incredible and I'm convince that feud with Sheamus considerably helped Sheamus's ability to work due to Dustin. His 1992-1994 stuff has been discussed pretty extensively on this board through the yearbooks and what not but I do want to give examples of his stellar work during that period which include the Rhodes-Stud Stable feud which is my favorite feud of all time, the Vader matches, and the Dangerous Alliance work. The bulk of that stuff shows how good Dustin was during the early 90s in WCW.

 

I want to point out that I think Dustin has some better intangibles and qualities as a singular performer than Taker as well. Ignoring the early 90s "Deadman" gimmick, I think Dustin's selling is better overall. Taker tends to get caught up in the WWE Main Event style where selling isn't the most valuable asset and that hurts him in this case. I think he's actually had some nice selling performances in those particular matches but it was inconsistent and I believe Dustin is very consistent in his ability to sell and show vulnerability. Furthermore, I like Dustin's offense a little more than Takers. Taker's got some fun MMA stuff he pulls out from time to time but sometimes it looks terrible. He's also got the big finishers and the dive and I enjoy all of those but I'm more into Dustin's style of offense. I think Dustin has some of the best strikes ever. His punches are really great and as a babyface they work really well in the comeback. His powerslam is the best I've ever seen and I saw his way before I saw Samoa Joe do the move similarly so I'll take his over Joe's any day. The bulldog can be weird sometimes but the way he does it is very unique and I think it worked well for him as a big babyface move. Ultimately, I like Dustin's simple but fiery babyface offense more than Taker's power offense and occasional shitty MMA offense. I don't want to forget Dustin's bumping which is off the charts and the missed crossbody bump is my favorite match-by-match bump by any wrestler ever.

 

Cons for Dustin: His bad periods are really bad. Both of his stints in TNA were embarrassing but the Black Reign run was worst of all. Nothing good came out of any of it. That puts a big damper on his career as a whole. His other times in the WWE were more focused on gimmick and character development rather than work which isn't a bad thing and I liked a lot of his stuff including Tourrettes Goldust but I tend to focus on in-ring more. There are parts of his WCW return that were just awful on every level too. Dustin also hurts a little from not having the big time matches although I count War Games 92 and 94 for sure.

 

Pros for Taker: I really enjoy some of Taker's work from 1996-1998. He really seemed to be motivated during a lot of those matches during the period. The Diesel match from WM 12 is very solid big man match and one of the better ones during that time period. I like his 97 work a lot with Vader, Bret, Austin, Foley, and Shawn. He worked all the top stars that year and wrestled good to great matches with each of them. The Austin feud in 98 is pretty good too and the Summerslam match is a lot of fun and had a great build. From 2002-2008 Taker improved a whole lot and had some awesome matches with a variety of opponents from Brock, Big Show, JBL, Mark Henry, Batista, Jeff Hardy, and Angle. From 09 till now he's delivered on the big stage very well but has tapered off a little bit and has looked average to bad at times like the Kane feud and the Rey feud where I think Rey carried him.

 

To look at him singularly, he is very good at selling but can be inconsistent at times. He's great at taking super bumps during big time matches like the dive in the WM 25 match with Shawn. He actually has a really varied offense with a shit ton of finishers which is good for the WWE style but sometimes it doesn't look very good at all. I will say he's one of the better big match performers of this generation and probably the best in WWE history because he's so well at making a match feel huge.

 

Cons for Taker: I've seen a little of his WCW work which is decent but 1990-1995 Taker isn't my thing at all from an in-ring perspective. He may have some good sprinkled in there but I haven't seen or found it yet. I know he was severely handicapped due to the gimmick but five years of no selling and mostly silly angles doesn't help his case. I like Corporate Ministry Taker as a character but thought he sucked in the ring for the most part. When he returned in 2000 he was TERRIBLE until he turned heel and finally got to change up the way he worked. Recently, he's been hit or miss in the ring and has been carried a few times. Age is probably his biggest downside at this point but he's still looked really bad a few times in that last four years.

 

Finally, I'll take Dustin pretty comfortably but it's certainly not a landslide. Dustin has a higher volume of good matches even with Taker wrestling in this era of free televised wrestling. Taker died and came back to life too much to catch up. Dustin's best performances may outshine Taker's too and he has a ton of great ones in early 90s WCW, 2002 WWE RAW, and 2009 WWECW.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I'd of course say that Runnels is a better wrestler career-wise than Callaway. But as to who's better, Undertaker or Goldust, I gotta go with The Undertaker.

[goodhelmet]

Why is Taker better Johnny?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Why is Taker better Johnny?

I think he's a better character, and I LOVE Goldust. And I think Dustin's best in ring work was in WCW as The Natural, while Callaway's best work was as Undertaker.

[goodhelmet]

Don't look now, Taker does his zombie rising and is about to make the comeback.

[thebrainfollower]

I voted Taker. I admit bias but this board is filled with personal favorite bias. When I was a little kid I was huge fan of the Universal monsters of the 30's and 40's and the Undertaker and Paul Bearer seemed like characters from them. I stayed a fan throughout the dark years and maintain Undertaker is one of the best big men brawlers of the last 20 years.

 

Huge longevity with a gimmick that should have lasted maybe 3 years at most and I DO think most of his big main events (except the Manias with Shawn and the first one with HHH) hold up. Don't think Goldust could have had that match with Punk this year at Mania either.

[Dylan Waco]

For me there is a flaw in the poll itself because when I first saw this I thought we were meant to be excluding non-Goldust Dustin Rhodes.

[tim]

Dustin still wins in that case for me. Awesome tag work in 2002/3 and the ECW run in 2009 I'll take over any extended Taker stretch. Dustin has apparently been pretty bad as Goldust (I haven't watched much 97-99 WWE since it happened) but so has Taker.

 

I'd also take Goldust/Orton that just happened over any of the WM Taker matches of the past several years.

[Guest TheGreatPuma]

This was a tough pick for me as I like each wrestler for different things but I had to pick Taker. I'm a mark for his agility, his toughness and his recent years. + his personas all got a reaction from me either positive or negative. And if it was negative it was in a good way as I still wanted to watch some but it wasn't turn off the tv type heat. He's gotten better in age for me.

[The Chief]

Both guys are similar in that I really started to appreciate them in their later years. I had to go with Taker based on consistency alone. Early Taker I give a pass to because of the gimmick constrictions, although I don't think Mean Mark was very good. 99-01 Taker I do not enjoy watching at all. But post American Bad Ass Taker is at the least mediocre with some really great stuff in there. Dustin has tons of great WCW stuff in his first run. His second WCW run with the red leather pants was pretty putrid. TNA Dustin was unwatchable. 2006 WWE Goldust was quite bad. 2009 WWE Goldust was great. 1999 Goldust was not. I almost feel like you can flip a coin to determine if Dustin had a good year or not, its that random. Taker has far more good years than bad. Its close but I'll give it to Taker based on reliability.