Undertaker - Better Face or Heel

Discuss why you thought if he was a better face or heel.

I'm not old enough to remember his early days as a heel. So the only time I remember him as a heel was when he was in the ministry, and it didn't realy work, that's why they completely changed his gimmick into the American badass after that. So il say Face.

When he first came in, he was a great heel, but what you have to remember is he had mega-faces to go up against...Hulk Hogan for example.

In the Ministry period, he wasn't really in direct competition with any uber-over face so it didn't work. He had the type of character that would only work in a literal Good vs Evil battle, and at the time, even the faces weren't "good".

I loved him as the American bad-ass, and even now the pops he gets make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up...so I went for face.

Maybe it's because I'm tired of seeing him as a face, or that his heel runs were few and far between in his long professional wrestling stint, but I think the character is more suited to a heel personna, and I particularly liked his 'Big Evil' run in 2002. There was more room for manuvere with his promos and his in-ring style and therefore was more entertaining than the now worn out face personna, so heel for me.

Probably say face.

I find myself saying heel again...so yeah better heel.

Firstly, his reign during the ministry of darkness was really cool, really evil and showed off his leadership skills

Secondly, his reign in 2002 as big evil was just badass, he was more free and entertaining on the microphone, really unpredictable.

You do realise, everyone is going to vote heel for every single poll that goes on

No, with The Rock I voted face. If there was ever one for Steve Austin I will vote face. Oh and I said face in this very thread...