|
View Poll Results: Who is the better wrestler? | |||
Chris Jericho | 26 | 83.87% | |
Chris Benoit | 5 | 16.13% | |
Voters: 31. You must log in or register to vote on this poll. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-01-2016, 03:37 AM | #41 | |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
Quote:
|
|
12-01-2016, 03:37 AM | #42 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
NOT THE TIME FOR THAT THOUGH >_<
|
12-01-2016, 03:50 AM | #43 | |
Doin' It Right
Posts: 35,459
|
Quote:
|
|
12-01-2016, 03:54 AM | #44 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
I think its what propelled him. He said he was the best and people believed him. Had danielson used his own gimmick people might have easily done the same.
|
12-01-2016, 03:55 AM | #45 |
Doin' It Right
Posts: 35,459
|
Hindsight is 20/20
|
12-01-2016, 03:56 AM | #46 |
Doin' It Right
Posts: 35,459
|
Not that I disagree with you, but we'll never know for sure
|
12-01-2016, 03:56 AM | #47 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
Punk owes Danielson a GREAT deal of his success
|
12-01-2016, 03:57 AM | #48 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
T-Shirt sales alone...cant imagine the money Danielson was jipped out of
|
12-01-2016, 04:03 AM | #49 |
Doin' It Right
Posts: 35,459
|
Shortened career aside, I think Bryan did pretty good for himself in the time he was "on top"
Had he been in Punk's spot, not gotten "fired" and not had to retire, I'm 100% sure his career would have eclipsed Pubk's by a large margin |
12-01-2016, 04:05 AM | #50 |
Doin' It Right
Posts: 35,459
|
Wouldn't have been too difficult given how Punk's WWE run ended lol
|
12-01-2016, 05:04 AM | #51 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
Thing is we're going by the way Punk's career ended, and the way DB's career ended up unfolding. Had Punk not ended up having the grievances he did do any of you honestly believe his career would have stalled out? If the dude had stuck it out and stayed with the company he'd have almost certainly stayed in the main event, and likely would have ended up taking DB's spot as the guy who beat the Authority, albeit in a much less satisfying way as I don't think we'd have seen the triple threat happen and instead it'd have just been Punk vs Triple H while Batista went on to fight Orton.
Also the idea that Punk only got over because of the "best in the world" shtick is really underestimating him in my opinion. It's like saying the only thing that got DB over was the YES! chants. Yeah, it definitely didn't hurt, but the dude was over even before that. Sure he didn't reach the peak until he started that stuff, but his career even before the "Summer of Punk" was nothing to scoff at. The dude had "it" in spades. As for Punk's matches not being as exciting as DB's, well, that certainly can be argued, but in-ring competition isn't the only thing that defines a great wrestler. If it were Tyson Kidd would have been god-tier. Punk was great in the ring. Not as great as Bryan, but still great. I'm a sucker for good workers and 5-star matches, but for me interesting characters and promos are more important, and if you can have both like Punk did you're golden in my eyes. Oh, and just an FYI I'm not saying DB wasn't amazing. I loved the dude, and he is one of my favorites to grace the ring in recent years. I'm just saying that in my honest opinion Punk had more of a star quality to him. |
12-01-2016, 08:33 AM | #52 |
MVP Mark
Posts: 16,447
|
Daniel Bryan had every single crowd basicall protesting and hijacking every single Raw until he was grant a title shot at Mania. That is how much everyone loved Bryan.
|
12-01-2016, 09:12 AM | #53 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
Even usingDanielsons gimmick punk at no time was ever as over. Ever.
And the best in the world gimmick's brilliance, and ivs said this since 06ish is that like any good propoganda it makes you view him in that light. It worked for danileson and punk both. But after punk stole it danielson went on and just got something else over. So punk rode danielsons back to success and it still didnt stop AMDrag.that alone makes him better. Never mind that punks best pop wasnt in the league of danielsons or that danielson could out work punk by accident. He doesnt even need tbose factors. Punks catch phrase should be 2nd best in the world, |
12-01-2016, 12:42 PM | #54 |
Loque Ja
Posts: 87,867
|
I like how a Chris Jericho vs Chris Benoit better wrestler thread has somehow turned into a CM Punk vs. Daniel Bryan better wrestler thread.
|
12-01-2016, 01:13 PM | #55 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
I TRIED TO NOT ENGAGE IT BUT I COULDNT RESIST |
12-01-2016, 01:27 PM | #56 |
Loque Ja
Posts: 87,867
|
At least you know your next big matchup after Chris Jericho goes into the hall of fame!
|
12-01-2016, 01:35 PM | #57 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
|
12-01-2016, 02:09 PM | #58 |
MVP Mark
Posts: 16,447
|
HBK time baby!
|
12-01-2016, 03:10 PM | #59 |
Celestia's Left Hand
Posts: 17,359
|
CM Punk was the cool guy, DB was cool because he wasn't cool and he connected with fans on a level that was emotional (within and beyond the context of the show which is frankly amazing)As a performer part of your job is to manipulate the audience,Bryan comes along and commands the crowds feelings without seeming to want to or even try to most of the time. CM Punk is skilled and a good talker but He can't touch Bryan for in ring skill or the impact he's had on fans and the company.
Last edited by KIRA; 12-01-2016 at 06:31 PM. |
12-01-2016, 05:40 PM | #60 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Even TPWW edits out Benoit.
|
12-01-2016, 05:44 PM | #61 |
Posts: 60,919
|
I was chewing up Punk at the time, but when you really play the stuff back, Bryan's holds up WAY better. Way, way, way better. Punk was actually a terrible babyface unless he was working with Brock. Punk worked well as a heel in 2009 and 2010, but he had plateaued in terms of delivering thrills to people. He was a good heel run against Jeff Hardy and that promo.
Would he have still been around? Yeah, and he would have gone over Triple H at WrestleMania XXX and Bryan still would have been the hottest thing on the show. Mania would have still been hijacked. It was Bryan or bust by this point. He'd have ended up in the main event and leaving with the belt. Punk would have still been hovering around and still getting beat up and cranky. |
12-01-2016, 06:05 PM | #62 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
Thing is you're all using Bryan's YES! movement stuff to say he's better. Problem with that is Bryan had a lot of external factors that allowed that movement to take place. I'm sorry, but if you honestly believe that the YES! movement just happened because Bryan was that good you're delusional. The YES! movement was the result of the fanbase becoming tired of being force-fed crap by the powers that be, the overlooking of great wrestlers just because they didn't fit WWE's mold, and Bryan's own overness. It was a perfect storm that resulted in something magical. Hell, Punk himself played a big roll in making that movement explode because he essentially became a martyr to the fans who wanted guys like him and Bryan in the main event. He justified what they were doing and spurred on the chants even more. Without all those pieces the YES! movement would never have happened. I think you're all giving Bryan way more credit for the movement than is deserved. Sure he was the centerpiece, and without someone as good as him it wouldn't have worked nearly as well, but it wasn't all him creating that.
|
12-01-2016, 06:18 PM | #63 |
Posts: 60,919
|
It was bad booking around him. It was cheating us out of another Daniel Bryan WrestleMania match. They couldn't move the movement onto anyone else because it belonged to Bryan. It was a lot more "because" of him than you're giving him credit for. He couldn't engineer it, but he manufactured a lot more than given credit for. His aura, his look, how he tailored his gimmick. See Punk on how to get booked into oblivion. The WWE couldn't do that with Bryan.
|
12-01-2016, 06:28 PM | #64 |
Celestia's Left Hand
Posts: 17,359
|
They tried to give the YES thing to Big Show at one point.
I'm not giving all credit to the yes movement BUT Bryan was shouting YES! when he was a heel the reason was different but it was still getting over because of how over the top and delusional DB was about winning his matches. I think the whole thing would've caught fire without WWE getting behind it but his face persona, the infectious positivity in the chant and the WWE machine just made it catch on and spread that much faster. |
12-01-2016, 08:15 PM | #65 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
If getting YES over wasnt him then why did he get more over than punk? Why didnt they cling to the guy who had been there longer? Terrible argument.
|
12-01-2016, 09:00 PM | #66 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
I never said that Bryan wasn't the one that got the YES! chants over... Y'all are mistaking the movement with the chants that became associated with it. The YES! chants were Bryan's thing, but that's not all the movement was. Hell, it was a very small part of the movement. That's why the chants didn't work on anyone else besides Bryan. That was his thing and his thing only. Meanwhile the movement itself has continued on resulting in MANY guys like Bryan continuing to get over despite WWE not being completely behind them. Cesaro and the Cesaro Section, Kevin Owens, Sami Zayn, Dolph Ziggler, all of these guys have benefited because of the YES! movement because at the end of the day that movement wasn't just about Bryan (as Noid seems to implying.) The YES! movement was about a shift in the public consumption and perception of the product as a whole. It was about a change in tastes and ideals among the fans. The idea that it was all for Bryan because the fans just wanted him to succeed is silly. Bryan just became the poster-boy of the movement because he was the best candidate for the job at the time. He took up that position and ran with it amazingly mind you, but the movement would have almost certainly occurred eventually regardless of Bryan. People at that point in time were just tired of the product being the way it had been. They were tired of being told what to like. Bryan offered the alternative to that that they desperately wanted so they latched on and helped propel him to greatness. The fans forced Bryan over. He rode that wave to the top. I'm not faulting him for that at all, but he certainly didn't get himself over as much as people are saying. He owes a LOT to the fans who debatably did most of the work.
P.S. Just wanted to emphasize that I'm not saying you're all wrong and I'm right or anything like that. I shouldn't have to specify that, but I know how internet stuff goes, especially around these parts. This is all opinion, and you're free to disagree with me. I won't think less of you for it, and I hope you won't think less of me. This is just a friendly debate. |
12-01-2016, 09:09 PM | #67 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
Oh, and I'd like to address this comment specifically too. They didn't latch onto Punk because he wasn't put in the same position. Punk was starting to be pulled down that path, but he didn't stick it out like Bryan did. Punk had enough and took his ball home. That is why they didn't latch onto him instead. Were the roles reversed I honestly think Punk could have ended up in that same position easily. In fact I think a lot of guys could have ended up there had they been in that position at the time. We'll never know for sure unless we get a time machine though.
|
12-01-2016, 09:18 PM | #68 | |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
Quote:
|
|
12-01-2016, 10:31 PM | #69 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
We'll have to agree to disagree there. I'm not revising anything. All I'm saying is that given the same spot others could have made the movement work as well. Your insistence that it was all Bryan just doesn't add up to me. IMO you're putting waaay too much credit on Bryan while trying to discount the fact that much of it was simply right place right time.
|
12-01-2016, 10:35 PM | #70 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Yeah, Bryan was hot way before Punk was gone. It started in 2012 and had reached fever-pitch by SummerSlam 2013.
None of those guys you mentioned has come anywhere near as close to being as over as Bryan. I do appreciate what you are trying to say about a creative direction and such bothering people, but they needed someone like Bryan to latch onto. No one else could have been in that role. Whenever they would try to smack him down, he'd just get more over. How is that working for Sami Zayn? Dolph Ziggler? Cesaro? Daniel Bryan changed a lot of things. He did kick down the door for a lot of independent talent -- perhaps even too many guys that are just drops in the bucket right now. In a negative sense, he may have convinced certain people to believe that Daniel Bryan looking like a mark is what caused people to gravitate behind him -- hence the James Ellsworths, etc. You seem to attribute Daniel Bryan's success as being a symptom of the YES! Movement, but I think it's vice versa -- any sort of "movement" gimmick is a symptom of Bryan. |
12-01-2016, 10:37 PM | #71 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Right place, right time is a fair point, but you can say that about almost any star -- if you hold off on a guy for too long it doesn't work, and pushing them too early can blow it. Timing is super-important. Bryan shouldn't be penalized for having good timing though, because it almost becomes a redundant measurement.
|
12-01-2016, 11:21 PM | #72 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
Oh I didn't mean to imply that Cesaro and company were as over as Bryan or even that they could have taken his place. If that's what you got from my comment I apologize. I was using them as examples that the movement itself was about guys like them "breaking out" not that they were instrumental in the movement.
As for the Bryan vs the movement thing I think it's like the chicken or the egg argument. We'll never really know I guess, but in my honest opinion the movement was what came first. I'm also not trying to penalize Bryan for being in the right place. I think he did amazing with it and proved himself a star. I just think that Punk and some others throughout history could have played that role just as well if not better. |
12-01-2016, 11:21 PM | #73 |
Best Poster
Posts: 56,903
|
Punk was pretty awful
|
12-01-2016, 11:24 PM | #74 |
I'm a loner, Dottie...
Posts: 3,069
|
You think everything is awful, Gerty.
|
12-01-2016, 11:25 PM | #75 |
Best Poster
Posts: 56,903
|
Bryan was 10x better
|
12-01-2016, 11:36 PM | #76 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Punk was definitely a more complete package than Bryan.
Neither was a mega-star... but Punk was closer. |
12-01-2016, 11:41 PM | #77 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Also, Benoit was crazy unlikable even before he became a murderer. Awkward and unnatural on the mic. He over-enunciated everything. It was annoying.
|
12-01-2016, 11:43 PM | #78 | |
Former TPWW Royalty
Posts: 66,588
|
In terms of the Bryan-Punk theoretical matchup, would have gone with Punk if it was pre-Road to Mania 30 but Bryan afterwards since he got to heights as a star Punk didn't in the end. As overall packages, they are very close to each other.
Quote:
Even in terms of mainstream appeal, Punk reached it first with the whole pipebomb incident and "Summer of Punk" as the major moments. He was getting focus from ESPN and other non-wrestling places well before Bryan's "YES!" craze took off. Same for WWE constantly trying to smack down Punk's popularity with crowds during his early years because they didn't have a hand in it. Heyman was the only key person in management who saw Punk's real value both in developmental and when he had him for the ECW brand. |
|
12-02-2016, 02:58 AM | #79 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Agreed. Punk could talk better. Not necessarily promo better, but talk better. But hearing Bryan on commentary, doing Talking Smack and cutting promos in the years since, I have no doubt that Bryan can be just as effective a talker as Punk due his greater charisma.
|
12-02-2016, 01:21 PM | #80 | |
Celestia's Left Hand
Posts: 17,359
|
Quote:
|
|