CM Punk VS The Undertaker 2009 or CM Punk VS The Undertaker 2013?

[WWE4EVA!]

Some people might know but some people might not know that This is not the first time Cm Punk and The Undertaker have fueded as in 2009 The Undertaker returned and started a rivalry with Punk over the World Heavyweight Championship, the feud ended when The Undertaker defeated Cm Punk in a Hell In a Cell Mach to win the World Heavyweight Championship.

Now in 2013 Cm Punk and The Undertaker are fighting each other again and this time it has got very personal as not only is Paul Bearer involved but it is for The Undertaker`s undefeated streak at WrestleMania, Ok it will only be one match and not three this time.

So I have a few questions

1. What one is better the 2009 feud or the 2013 feud?

2. Is this a chance for The Undertaker to put Punk over after defeating him in 2009?

 

[DethMetal]

Both are rather unique, simply because we're seeing the Undertaker deal with two completely different aspects of CM Punk's character. In 2009, it was strictly for the championship, and Punk was in the beginning stages of his "Straightedge Messiah" gimmick. Their feud now is more personal, which can be good, because Punk is driven to be the Best in the World, so he feels he has to do things like end Taker's streak. I personally have enjoyed the 2013 feud more so far. Although it probably won't continue after Wrestlemania, I find it to be more interesting than the 2009 counterpart. All involved have been able to make what seems like a match thrown together for Punk, one of the matches I'm really looking foward to (besides that, it was pretty cool to see Kane pissed off for a couple of weeks, and on Taker's side again). I probably won't be able to form a complete conclusion until I see them lock up tomorrow, but this feud has been able to grasp my attention more, despite it's questionable tactics. I really am curious how things would've played out if Paul was still alive.

As far as The Undertaker putting Punk over this time, I highly doubt it. I don't see Taker losing this match in the slightest.

 

[quagmire]

The 2013 is better simply due to the 2009 ended in a squash match due to CM Punk being in the doghouse for whatever reason.

The 2013 has better build up to the match and I am sure the match itself will be one of the best of the night. The only issue I have with it is since 'Taker is claiming he will beat Punk to an inch of his life, how is he going to do that in a regular match? Feel maybe Hell in a call, ambulance match, etc would be more appropriate for what 'Taker says what he is going to do to punk.

 

[Matisyahu]

I'm thinking this one will go the way of the HHH vs Taker 2 match I believe it was Wrestlemania 27. HHH basically controlled most of the match while Taker looked legit worried about losing while getting in some good offense here and there only to just barely squeak out a win when HHH slipped up.

I think this will be a similar match with Punk controlling the majority of it and the announcers saying this could finally be where Taker loses. Punk will throw everything he has at Taker for him to just keep getting up with Heyman doing everything he can to help Punk until finally Taker defeats him by the skin of his teeth.

How is it that Punk hasn't referred to their previous feud where he "made the legendary Undertaker TAP OUT"?

Anyways I preffered their first feud. This one is the most disorganized clusterfuck ever

 

[thebarber]

any fan worth their salt will remember the rubbish throw away feud in late 2009. Taker went over quick as Punk disrespected Taker backstage regarding the dress code and not wanting to wear a suit and tie coz Taker didnt have too.
Anyway, the feuds are nothing alike apart that the same two guys are involved.
Punk will look like a main eventer in this match, but the ending will see him carried out by druids, not to be seen for some time as he is booked to be off television for 2-3 months, he will "sell" his injuries in the meantime

 

[Mustang Sally]

Admittedly, I don't remember them feuding in '09. Still, it could be that era's feud would be better than todays' because (1) Undertaker was still working more than one match a year and could be counted on to provide a continuing threat, not just one that raises it's head at Wrestlemania time. (2) Punk didn't have the unique contract he does now and was still apparently working under the terms Vince McMahon and Creative set for him.

That last point is significant. In Mark Calaway and Phil Brooks, we have the unusual mix of two performers who seem to have a lot of say in what their characters do. I say "seem" because we don't really know how much of that vague term "creative control" either (or both) have, but I'm presuming the two men have a lot more pull than just about anyone else on the roster. This creates interesting possibilities, ones in which management can make suggestions as to how a program will play out, but the plans have to be cleared by the performers before anything can be done. At crunch time, Vince McMahon must detest these stipulations, no? (Wasn't this type of thing the reason behind the whole Montreal Screwjob mess?)

If that's the case, what happens if Punk & 'Taker can't agree? What happens if the integrity of the program has to be altered (or sacrificed) to please either/both of them? What if Creative wants 'Taker's streak to continue, but Punk wants to be the guy to end it? What if Creative wants to keep it going, but Undertaker has decided he wants Punk to be the one to end it?

If it came down to a stalemate, who prevails? Sure, most of us would say Undertaker because of his length of service and legendary status.....but what the fans want would have nothing to do with it if Punk invokes his contract. What could he legally do if he didn't get his way?

Obviously, all this has been long settled since the match is taking place later tonight, but it's interesting to speculate on where a power struggle based on creative control might lead. Back in '09, management determined what these two guys were going to do in the ring. Today......who knows?


***I still think C.M. Punk jobs tonight.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

This feud, overall, has been better due in large part to Punk's increased star power. Back in 2009, CM Punk was pretty much someone that they'd given the World Heavyweight Championship to hold onto for a while. Michael Hayes said as much on the CM Punk DVD. The feud with Taker did help Punk in the long run, however.

Their feud in 2013 has been built around the death of Paul Bearer and Punk's desecration of his memory. As a result, it simply has a much more visceral feel to it. It's not about the glory that comes with being a champion, but, rather, it's a feud about pride, dignity and even, to some degree, a sense of family. Moody & Taker were very close in real life, so this gives the feud an edge that you don't see in most. It's an edge that makes people a little uncomfortable, given Moody's recent death, but that's part of the point. Punk came off as despicable and even though some fans seem to have forgotten this, heels are supposed to be dislikeable human beings.

 

[MWRedskins]

2013 because even though the most likely outcome is the same, this time though, it will be a long match where Punk looks good and Undertaker looks good and both come out strong. in the 2009 feud, it was over the World title and Punk just got beat. his feud with him kinda seemed out of place and he didn't really make it all that personal. just insulted the fact that he doesn't have powers and he came out with smoke. now he insults the powers, hypes up his streak and how impressive it is, tells how he is going to end it and even insults his long time friend who passed and stole the urn he used to carry. 2013 is more personal and the match should be a good one.

 

[Dyscord]

Admittedly, I don't remember them feuding in '09. Still, it could be that era's feud would be better than todays' because (1) Undertaker was still working more than one match a year and could be counted on to provide a continuing threat, not just one that raises it's head at Wrestlemania time. (2) Punk didn't have the unique contract he does now and was still apparently working under the terms Vince McMahon and Creative set for him.

That last point is significant. In Mark Calaway and Phil Brooks, we have the unusual mix of two performers who seem to have a lot of say in what their characters do. I say "seem" because we don't really know how much of that vague term "creative control" either (or both) have, but I'm presuming the two men have a lot more pull than just about anyone else on the roster. This creates interesting possibilities, ones in which management can make suggestions as to how a program will play out, but the plans have to be cleared by the performers before anything can be done. At crunch time, Vince McMahon must detest these stipulations, no? (Wasn't this type of thing the reason behind the whole Montreal Screwjob mess?)

If that's the case, what happens if Punk & 'Taker can't agree? What happens if the integrity of the program has to be altered (or sacrificed) to please either/both of them? What if Creative wants 'Taker's streak to continue, but Punk wants to be the guy to end it? What if Creative wants to keep it going, but Undertaker has decided he wants Punk to be the one to end it?

If it came down to a stalemate, who prevails? Sure, most of us would say Undertaker because of his length of service and legendary status.....but what the fans want would have nothing to do with it if Punk invokes his contract. What could he legally do if he didn't get his way?

Obviously, all this has been long settled since the match is taking place later tonight, but it's interesting to speculate on where a power struggle based on creative control might lead. Back in '09, management determined what these two guys were going to do in the ring. Today......who knows?


***I still think C.M. Punk jobs tonight.

I think they both know that whoever breaks the streak would become an instant star. Punk knows that he doesn't need that as he's gotten by pretty well on his own.

They'll do what's best for business. If they were both selfish, then we'd have a problem like you described.

 

[Mr. HD]

Looks like I'm gonna be "that guy" and say I liked their 2009 feud better. 2009 as a whole was such a poor year. Not just for WWE, I feel like that was just a really bad year overall for everything.

Anyway, I actually watched a video where Punk cut a promo on Taker and talked about his character and how it applies to the people. Hell, I can't explain it. It's better if I just show it:

[YOUTUBE]yMT0c9vM3Uc[/YOUTUBE]

I enjoyed this promo more than anything they've done in this feud so far. Most people are gonna go with the 2013 feud cause of Punk's jump in popularity. But this segment with Punk talking about Undertaker's character and mixing that in with the dull lives in the people and drowning their sorrows in alcohol. This was good stuff.

This feud has honestly done nothing for me. Undertaker hasn't really said much on the mic. It was a little one sided with Punk cutting the bulk of the promos.

Punk's best feud of 2009 (maybe of all) was with Jeff Hardy but this feud isn't far behind.

 

[ADLegend21]

Honestly both seemed the same during their payoff matches. The WWE put the full length 09 match on their site and just as I remembered, it was a lengthy squash match where Taker took the title. This one looked different at the start with punk actually hitting Old School, but then he didn't even get a clean finisher in while Taker hit two Tombstones.

This new feud had a CM Punk that was a locker room leader big brother type that the Undertaker used to be when he more than one match a year, as opposed to a new found star Punk that wasn't quite as influential. Still it bugged me that the one GTS punk hit Taker doesn't hit the mat, bounces off the Ropes and hits a tombstone. Punk doesn't need the fame that goes with the streak but it would've done a hell of a lot for his gimmick after an embarrassing Royal rumble against the rock and the tough end tot he Elimination chamber rematch and losing to John Cena on that epic Raw. It would've been great for Taker to pass HIS torch to Punk like Rock did to Cena later in the show.

Gotta say though, Punk made this streak match relevant by running with Paul Bearers death and he urn the way he did. Actually made it seem like he COULD end the streak with everyone going "who's this years victim?" I hope he gets all the rest his body needs after carrying the WWE for the last part of 2011 and all of 2012.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

The 2013 is better simply due to the 2009 ended in a squash match due to CM Punk being in the doghouse for whatever reason.

The story that appeared on all the dirtsheets around the time was that one day CM Punk was walking around in a T-shirt and shorts, and The Undertaker approached CM Punk backstage and told him he had to "dress like a champion". CM Punk told him that John Cena was always wearing jorts and no one complains so he's going to dress however he wants.

The Undertaker complained to management and they all thought Punk was being smug comparing himself to Cena. They decided to send him a message by taking the title away and burying him on TV.

 

[HBsam31]

I liked the 2013 version of the feud more in part to Punk being more seasoned in the WWE, and under the horrible circumstances they had a great story to work with. I for one loved Punk stealing the urn. It brought me back to the old Undertaker days. It was almost like a 90's type feud now. Punk pushed the envelope with all of the Paul Bearer stuff which only enhanced the feud. All ending with Taker getting his revenge at Mania. I liked the 09 feud, but this one had all the components to make it great.