Int'l Region, DC Subregion, First Round: (7) CM Punk vs. (10) Vader

[klunderbunker]

This is a second round match in the International Region, Washington D.C. Subregion. It is a standard one on one match held under International Rules. It will be held at the Verizon Center in Washington D.C.

#7. CM Punk

Vs.

#10. Vader

​

Polls will be open for three days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.

 

[Con T.]

This match is summed up best in this way;

CM Punk got to the top of the WWE (and beat John Cena in the process, to do so), and became WWE champion

Vader did not.

Both of these guys aren't top stars in wrestling, but Punk is the better worker, te better mic worker, and probably most importantly, actually won the WWE world title (and sure, you could argue the merits of being champion in 2012, compared to 1996. Fine. 1996 was one of WWE's worst business years with a flailing champion, and Vader still couldn't get a title run. Fucking Sid got a reign.)

In fact, I know the anti-Punk congregate are going to bitch at him packing up and leaving. Punk spent seven years in WWE; Vader spent two.

This should be Punk, for every reason imaginable.

 

[Dave]

Whoever emerges from this match is going to know that they were in a fight, that's for sure. And whilst I'm voting for CM Punk, he might find it tough against someone like Vader. Honestly, the WWE doesn't have anyone like Vader anymore. They didn't have someone like that during any of Punk's greatest runs in the company. And quite frankly, I don't think there will ever be someone else like Vader. He was literally a freak of nature. He was intimidating to say the least and a real stiff worker by all accounts. And we all know Punk feels about stiff workers, right? (read: Ryback)

Still, I think a punk gets through this one by the skin of his teeth. As the match wares on, I think Punk does enough to tire the big man out and pick up a cheap victory from somewhere. This would have been a great match would it have happened today.

 

[JJYanks121]

Remember when Punk fought Brock Lesnar? He gave him all he had and it just wasn't enough right? That's exactly what would happen here. Vader in a lot of ways is like a rock but over 100 pounds heavier. Punk has nothing to put away a guy that size and a prime Vader eats 210 pound guys like that for lunch. Keep in mind Vader did win the WCW title and mauled Sting to get it. Punk isn't Sting and he isn't and shouldn't be moving on here. Vader wins.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I'd like to vote for Punk, but I can't. I know that I'm going to get attacked for this, but Vader goes over here.

While it's true that Vader never had a good run in WWE. His runs internationally and in WCW more than make up for that. In WCW, Vader was the monster heel that defeated Sting for the Championship. Not only that, but Vader is one tough sum bitch. I just don't see how Punk's offense could stop Vader. Punk isn't going to get him up for a GTS and Punk isn't going to make him submit with the Anaconda Vice.

I'll give Punk his due. He is better in the ring and on the mic, but I think that prime Vader would just run over Punk. Also, don't give me the Punk as a draw argument because while Punk was on his historic run as WWE Champion, he didn't even main event most PPV's or Raws. So what does that tell you?

Vote Vader.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Remember when Punk fought Brock Lesnar? He gave him all he had and it just wasn't enough right? That's exactly what would happen here. Vader in a lot of ways is like a rock but over 100 pounds heavier. Punk has nothing to put away a guy that size and a prime Vader eats 210 pound guys like that for lunch. Keep in mind Vader did win the WCW title and mauled Sting to get it. Punk isn't Sting and he isn't and shouldn't be moving on here. Vader wins.

Punk had that match won if it wasn't for Heyman's interference. Also, Vader is no Lesnar. Opponent size hasn't really shown to be much of an issue over the years; Punk goes over.

 

[JJYanks121]

Punk had that match won if it wasn't for Heyman's interference. Also, Vader is no Lesnar. Opponent size hasn't really shown to be much of an issue over the years; Punk goes over.

And what exactly did Punk put Lesnar away with? Heyman helped but watch again because lesnar kicks out anyway. Vader is over 400 pounds. Punk can't hit the GTS and the Vice wouldn't lock in. Without a finisher, it's near impossible to beat a guy like Vader. Guys like a Punk simply don't beat guys like Vader.

 

[Nate DaMac]

And what exactly did Punk put Lesnar away with? Heyman helped but watch again because lesnar kicks out anyway. Vader is over 400 pounds. Punk can't hit the GTS and the Vice wouldn't lock in. Without a finisher, it's near impossible to beat a guy like Vader. Guys like a Punk simply don't beat guys like Vader.

Punk had Lesnar dead to rights in the Anaconda Vise. Heyman saved him for the umpteenth time in that match during the hold.

Besides, Lesnar>>>>>>>>Vader. A better example would be Mark Henry whom Punk has beaten several times.

 

[Con T.]

Are we really bothering arguing with "such and such wrestler can't do this"? It's about the worst argument someone could make; it's essentially saying to treat wrestling like a shoot, when it's a work (something no one ever smartened Vader up on)

Dude; it's fucking wrestling. I've watched enough Rey Mysterio matches to know that size means very little. I've watched CM Punk GTS Umaga, and he was billed at 350. I guess what I'm saying, you're really grasping at straws when you're asking for us to think of it like a shoot.

So stop being dense, and stop treating a work like a shoot.

 

[JJYanks121]

While I do enjoy how nobody on these boards can quite present a counterargument without resorting to namecalling and character assassination, let's stick to the match at hand. Perhaps it was overzealous of me to use the Lesnar/Punk match as a comparison. That was a No-DQ match, which was done so that Punk stood a chance.....and he still lost. Having weapons to try and slay the beast was helpful, especially when, as a major babyface you do stuff like low blows, but he still lost.

The thing about people like Punk is, they have limitations. In every aspect of wrestling, Punk has limitations. As an athlete, he certainly does and I could very easily argue that at 450, Vader moved better than Punk ever did. That's not to say Vader is the better "technician" because he's not, and he doesn't need to be. He's a mauler and everywhere he went, he killed people. Vader is always vastly underrated in these things and Punk is always overrated. It's the perfect storm for a Punk exit as Vader moves on to be slayed by a much bigger, much stronger name as it should be.

 

[nightmare]

The GTS may not be a factor as it would with smaller guys, but I am pretty sure Punk could still wrap up Vader for the Vice and choke his fat ass out. Oh and as far as the Punk isnt Sting line- you are right, Sting wouldnt have cheated or played dirty to take out Vader. Punk certainly has shown he has no problem doing just that when necessary.


Punk can take this & as good as WCW Vader may have been, it sure wasnt close to being as significant as what Punk did when he took down Cena & held the WWE title for as long as he did. Vader did well in Japan & that scores him some points, but between the IWGP belt and the WCW belt it took 3 different reigns each respectively for him to come close to the number that Punk put up in one reign. Plus as Haiku stated earlier, Vader could not even take the belt during his WWF run despite being a previous big name & the company being in a lull of sorts.


Punk can take this match, by whatever means he has to. Sure he takes a beating in the process, but he certainly can outsmart Vader.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Vader is a more decorated champion over several promotions and continents. Punk, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't fare well against big guys. Unless you count defeating Big Daddy V or a modern day Kane as an achievement.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Vader was injured during his WWE run, which is why he wasn't a huge success.

I told Vince upfront that I needed surgery. And that's what I did. I did the deal with Gorilla Monsoon and then the next day I was off to the hospital. My agent agreed for me to come back in ninety days and I needed ten months and that was my deal. I said, "I need ten months, that's the deal. This is the money I want, this is the deal I gotta have, ten months after the opening." And it didn't happen so that whole first year with the WWE, I couldn't... you know, I come out, I'm bench pressing six hundred, I come out of surgery, I can't bench press hundred pounds and can't do a pushup, can't raise my hand over my head, yet I'm in the ring with the WWE? And really, let's face it, this is the stiffest competition of my career.

A physically healthy Vader would have been WWE Champion, I've no doubt in that. He was a success everywhere he went, there just wasn't really anyone like him. He'd be a major obstacle for CM Punk to overcome, and I'm struggling to see a way Punk could take down Vader. Like other's have said, he wouldn't have been able to hit the GTS, and even the Anaconda Vice could prove difficult due to how massive Vader is.

I'll wait and see people argue Punk's case, but at the moment I'm leaning towards Vader.

 

[jmt225]

I don't get how can anyone make the kayfabe argument for Punk. Prime Vader would absolutely crush the guy. There's no way around it...

If you want to say Punk was the better talent and had way more respectful accomplishments than Vader... then fine; that's a perfectly acceptable reason to vote for him.

But if you're voting kayfabe here, you have to go with Vader.

People bringing up the Lesnar match... that wasn't prime Brock Lesnar, first of all. Heyman and Lesnar have both made it clear that Lesnar didn't become 100% in this current WWE run until just around the beginning of 2014, months after Lesnar/Punk happened.

Punk was a tough and smart wrestler but to think he could take out a true monster like Vader is just silly. This isn't modern-day Mark Henry we're talking about here. Vader truly is one of the scariest, most devastating pro wrestlers to ever exist. I just can't see how Punk would find a way to beat him, especially when the best thing you can bring up about Punk standing a chance is to say he "almost" beat Brock Lesnar.

I don't even know who I'm voting for at this point. I've been a massive CM Punk fan for over 10 years now (although he's rubbed me the wrong way lately, I'm still a huge fan of him as a talent). However, I'm a huge fan of prime Vader, too, so I can't just throw Punk a vote here like I would if he was up against Yokozuna or another "monster" I don't give a shit about.

I'd like to see some better posts in this thread on why Punk should win this before I decide to actually vote for him.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Ask yourself this question - if CM Punk at his absolute strongest (whenever you determine that to be) were to face 1992-1994 Sting (which is absolutely when Sting was at his strongest), who would win?

I think 9 times out of 10, prime-Sting beats prime-Punk. Sting was faster, stronger, better.

Now consider the fact that prime-Sting had a 1-3 record against prime-Vader, including 2 World Heavyweight Championship matches, including the fabled non-title "White Castle of Fear" strap match in which Vader not only defeated Sting, but ruptured his ear drum in the process.

I like CM Punk, l lot, but he was an undersized heavyweight against guys like Cena, who was famously compared to Strong by Jim Ross while Cena was in OVW.

The "Punk will outsmart Vader" argument is fucking ridiculous as well, because it assumes a) that superheavyweights are all big and stupid, and b) that Vader doesn't have a counter to how smart Punk is. Vader had a counter. His manager, Harley Race, is one of the smartest in-ring minds in professional wrestling history. HHH said so himself.

Vader has the edge in power, intensity, drive and desire, ruthlessness and brutality, and they are even in speed and experience. People will vote for Punk because smarks LOVE them some CM Punk, but when you really sit back and consider the match, there is no way Punk should go over The Mastadon here.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

If you want to say Punk was the better talent and had way more respectful accomplishments than Vader... then fine; that's a perfectly acceptable reason to vote for him.

Talent is relative. Both men had outstanding talent relative to their size.

CM Punk's first World Championship reign came as the result of him cashing in a Money in the Bank briefcase (mind you just weeks after being pinned cleanly by The Miz on ECW.)

Vader's first major World Title was the IWGP World Title in Japan, which was Antonio Inoki's promotion. Vader defeated Masahiro Chono in less than 6 minutes in the first round, Tatsumi Fujinami in less than 15 minutes in the second round, and with Lou Thesz as the special referee, defeated Shinya Hashimoto IN LESS THAN 10 MINUTES IN THE FINALS.

I dunno about you, but pinfall victories over 3 Japanese legends vs cashing in a briefcase over an already fatigued opponent seems pretty easy to me.

And JMT, I know you're a Vader-backer, but I wanted to utilize your quote not so much to respond TO you, but to use that as a jumping off point for others who may make that argument.

Here's a link to the Vader vs Fujinami Match:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xyk74q_tatsumi-fujinami-vs-vader-njpw-04-24-89_sport

Vote Vader.

 

[Loveless]

Prime Punk has a notoriously bad record against people who are significantly bigger or stronger than him. From "dropping the bomb" until he left (which I'd assume you're arguing is his prime), he gets nailed by Nash to lose the title, loses to HHH, loses to Rock, loses to Taker, loses to Lesnar, loses to Reigns and loses to Kane. The record speaks for itself, without even really needing to touch on Vader, who is unquestionably one of the best big man of the past 25 years and a famously tough guy to work with. This match goes down the same way as Punk Vs Lesnar.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't know how many times I can say "Vader was a bit shit" and have it fall on deaf ears, but for old time's sake:

"Vader was a bit shit".

Here's a few pointers for this match:

If you think Sting's prime was in 1992, a time when nobody watched his product, you literally don't understand wrestling.

Nobody who is good is a journey man. John Cena does not wrestle in Japan, nor does he need to.

CM Punk was the WWE champion for a year when his competition was John Cena, one of the best ever.

Vader won the WCW title when Ric Flair wasn't around.

People to have beaten Vader for the title include Ron Simmons.

Look, IC will come at this with his usual warped logic and I don't care enough to argue as Vader will win as per usual, despite having proven to be a shitty worker that injured his opponents, had absolutely zero longevity and without any discernible drawing power outside of Japan. Vader is a bit shit, Punk isn't.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Vader's alright. Vader, to me, is the bloke that traded wrench shots with Kane and then started crying about his weight problem. He's also a bloke who wrestled Sting and had some sort of massive shoulder helmet which shot smoke, which I appreciate are pretty cool things. Vader's one of few people to have an arguably worse moonsault than CM Punk but, considering the aforementioned weight problem, that's not really anything to be ashamed of.

Punk's moonsault is entirely too diagonal and entirely too miles away from his opponent, but he did still nearly beat John Cena with it, and I hope people aren't underestimating a man who was all but unbeatable for three years.

 

[JJYanks121]

I don't know how many times I can say "Vader was a bit shit" and have it fall on deaf ears, but for old time's sake:

"Vader was a bit shit".

Here's a few pointers for this match:

If you think Sting's prime was in 1992, a time when nobody watched his product, you literally don't understand wrestling.

Nobody who is good is a journey man. John Cena does not wrestle in Japan, nor does he need to.

CM Punk was the WWE champion for a year when his competition was John Cena, one of the best ever.

Vader won the WCW title when Ric Flair wasn't around.

People to have beaten Vader for the title include Ron Simmons.

Look, IC will come at this with his usual warped logic and I don't care enough to argue as Vader will win as per usual, despite having proven to be a shitty worker that injured his opponents, had absolutely zero longevity and without any discernible drawing power outside of Japan. Vader is a bit shit, Punk isn't.

I just want to touch on one thing here. You said nobody that is good is a journeyman. That's true if you're a babyface. A promotion kept you around and fed you heels. That's how wrestling worked for a long time. Vader is a career heel (minus that stupid face turn in WWF). You push the heel hard and once he's beaten and the mystique gone, he moves on. Thing is, Vader didn't go down so easily and thus, he stuck around.

And then there's Punk. As a babyface champ, ratings started to decline despite "great segments". The. He turned heel and the only reason we can talk about the length of Punks reign is that Rock didn't want to come back sooner. Ryback was a hotter act than punk and under normal circumstances he would have ended the reign but we had to wait for Rock. Having a lengthy, terrible reign that was bad for ratings is not a good argument for Punk.

Lastly, Vader went about 450 in his prime. Punk faced a guy weighing 450...with two other guys on his team...and lost. This is big show in 2009. Vader was more brutal than big show and I just can't find any conceivable way punk wins here. The more likely scenario is that Vader becomes the fatty deposit to put punk on his back.

 

[Tastycles]

I just want to touch on one thing here. You said nobody that is good is a journeyman. That's true if you're a babyface. A promotion kept you around and fed you heels. That's how wrestling worked for a long time. Vader is a career heel (minus that stupid face turn in WWF). You push the heel hard and once he's beaten and the mystique gone, he moves on. Thing is, Vader didn't go down so easily and thus, he stuck around.

That is how wrestling worked in the 1950s. Come the 80s Flair, Race, Billy Graham, Piper, Savage (mostly), Ted DiBiase, Mr. Perfect , Bockwinkel , those Russians, etc and a general switch to a more rounded product with deeper rosters made it easy for Vader to do the same. The guy was an anachronism at best.

 

[Con T.]

I just want to touch on one thing here. You said nobody that is good is a journeyman. That's true if you're a babyface. A promotion kept you around and fed you heels. That's how wrestling worked for a long time. Vader is a career heel (minus that stupid face turn in WWF). You push the heel hard and once he's beaten and the mystique gone, he moves on. Thing is, Vader didn't go down so easily and thus, he stuck around.

Tasty touched on it, but if that were the case, Hollywood Hogan would have lost all his heat after losing to Roddy Piper. The things you're describing is the heel character of Bruiser Brody, Abdullah The Butcher, etc. freak shows who couldn't last long in their territory, either because of stiff work or diminishing returns.

Gee. I wonder who that sounds like?

And then there's Punk. As a babyface champ, ratings started to decline despite "great segments". The. He turned heel and the only reason we can talk about the length of Punks reign is that Rock didn't want to come back sooner. Ryback was a hotter act than punk and under normal circumstances he would have ended the reign but we had to wait for Rock. Having a lengthy, terrible reign that was bad for ratings is not a good argument for Punk.

You're really going to talk about bad business, and ignore Vader in WCW? Because the prime of Vader's career just so happened to occur during the real dark ages of WCW, when they were losing plenty of money.

Punk's business, by and large, proved fairly steady while on top. Was it overwhelming? Of course not. But using Vader as a paragon of good business is faulty at best.

Lastly, Vader went about 450 in his prime. Punk faced a guy weighing 450...with two other guys on his team...and lost. This is big show in 2009. Vader was more brutal than big show and I just can't find any conceivable way punk wins here. The more likely scenario is that Vader becomes the fatty deposit to put punk on his back.

I seem to recall Punk beating Show throughout 2012, and beating him, Randy Orton, and Sheamus to challenge the Undertaker. He's beaten Henry, Kane, and Show.

And while Vader has great wins, he tends to falter quite a bit. Losses against Hogan, Shawn, and Flair come to mind already. Losses to Sid, Ron Simmons, and Edge also come up really quickly. Again, Punk isn't elite, but let's stop making Vader out to be this indestructible for. Vader can be beat.

 

[JJYanks121]

Tasty touched on it, but if that were the case, Hollywood Hogan would have lost all his heat after losing to Roddy Piper. The things you're describing is the heel character of Bruiser Brody, Abdullah The Butcher, etc. freak shows who couldn't last long in their territory, either because of stiff work or diminishing returns.

Gee. I wonder who that sounds like?



You're really going to talk about bad business, and ignore Vader in WCW? Because the prime of Vader's career just so happened to occur during the real dark ages of WCW, when they were losing plenty of money.

Punk's business, by and large, proved fairly steady while on top. Was it overwhelming? Of course not. But using Vader as a paragon of good business is faulty at best.



I seem to recall Punk beating Show throughout 2012, and beating him, Randy Orton, and Sheamus to challenge the Undertaker. He's beaten Henry, Kane, and Show.

And while Vader has great wins, he tends to falter quite a bit. Losses against Hogan, Shawn, and Flair come to mind already. Losses to Sid, Ron Simmons, and Edge also come up really quickly. Again, Punk isn't elite, but let's stop making Vader out to be this indestructible for. Vader can be beat.

Yes, he can be, but not by Punk. There's no way in a kayfabe setting to sell it. What your post shows is that neither punk nor Vader were top stars that increased business. That's fine if that's your point. If it is though, you need another angle because drawing power favors nobody. The next thing is simply looking at this match as both guys in their primes and honestly, Vader in his prime eats punk in his prime for lunch. The first time Sting faced him, he was brutally dominated. This is a one off match, first time they face. You really think Pubk would do BETTER than a prime Sting?

 

[Con T.]

Yes, he can be, but not by Punk. There's no way in a kayfabe setting to sell it. What your post shows is that neither punk nor Vader were top stars that increased business. That's fine if that's your point. If it is though, you need another angle because drawing power favors nobody.The next thing is simply looking at this match as both guys in their primes and honestly, Vader in his prime eats punk in his prime for lunch. The first time Sting faced him, he was brutally dominated. This is a one off match, first time they face. You really think Pubk would do BETTER than a prime Sting?

Perhaps I should refer you to my first post...

This match is summed up best in this way;

CM Punk got to the top of the WWE (and beat John Cena in the process, to do so), and became WWE champion

Vader did not.

Both of these guys aren't top stars in wrestling, but Punk is the better worker, te better mic worker, and probably most importantly, actually won the WWE world title (and sure, you could argue the merits of being champion in 2012, compared to 1996. Fine. 1996 was one of WWE's worst business years with a flailing champion, and Vader still couldn't get a title run. Fucking Sid got a reign.)

The reason I'm voting Punk is because Punk is the better wrestler. Period.

Who has better matches; Vader, or CM Punk?

Who has better promos; Vader, or CM Punk?

Who actually won the WWE world title; Vader, or CM Punk?

Did you answer all three of these for CM Punk? Because if you didn't, then I'm not sure what to tell you, other than you like a stiff bloke who's shit at promos. More power to you if that's your thing. But that doesn't make a good wrestler.

And to be honest, it holds more weight than the kayfabe argument, because again, you're arguing a work as a shoot. You're basically saying that, in kayfabe, Punk couldn't do anything to Vader. And what I'm telling you is the entire point of kayfabe is to suspend disbelief. You aren't arguing kayfabe by saying Punk couldn't do anything to Vader; in fact, you're arguing the exact opposite, that the suspension of disbelief has no place in this tournament, and that the tournament is essentially a shoot.

I saw Ric Flair beat Vader, on multiple occasions. If Ric Flair can beat Vader, why should I not have any reason to believe CM Punk can't?

 

[Tastycles]

Prime Sting 1992.

Literally the only people who think that are Vader fan boys trying to make this point. Sting was the hottest thing in the history of professional wrestling in 1997, but his prime was when he was sharing the main event spotlight with Ron Simmons. Jesus Christ.