Who was better: Kane or The Undertaker?
- Thread starter mrken12
- Start date
Taker and it's not even close. 
Tide Run This
Veteran
Mark Callaway
Lol..this is a open and shut case.
I felt like Kane as a character was way more compelling. Undertaker was just an undertaker.(i know oversimplifying). It's closer than yall are leading on.(I'm going to say Undertaker in his prime). Kane being unmasked is a classic moment. And, IMO, Kane's character always had a roof on it because Taker had to be protected. Yall think Taker could make a tag team with Xpac and D-Bry work? Kane wasn't no bum. Kane may not have been a full time main-eventer but he was one hell of an enhancement talent that could easily be put into the main event scene at any moment. I mean shyt, Kane's there full fukking time in 2016 helping shyt.
But I will say Undertaker, because he's had alot of epic moments. And he really was a phenom and his entrance became a spectacle itself.
But, "better" can defined in many ways.
But I will say Undertaker, because he's had alot of epic moments. And he really was a phenom and his entrance became a spectacle itself.
But, "better" can defined in many ways.
An argument can easily be made for Kane, whether people agree or not because Kane had shyt he had to overcome. As I said earlier, I cannot recall a time where Undertaker wasn't treated like a big deal. He has always been a Final Boss type character (like Brock is now) to where he didn't even need the title to be universally recognized as THAT NIKKA. Kane came in like THAT NIKKA but tailed off or fluctuated when frankly, he should have been treated like 1B to Taker's 1A.
Kane never had that luxury, so by that argument, Undertaker was better. But I'd wager to say that Kane might have been a better worker.