The Scarred One
The Greatest of All Time
In the past couple of years, two feuds come to my mind as being so well done that it made me want to tune in to both RAW and SmackDown every week. These were the Shawn Michaels/Chris Jericho feud back in 2008 and CM Punk/Jeff Hardy back in 2009.
In the past, many rivalries and storylines revolved around the whole arguement of "I'm better than you and I deserve to be champion." Aside from that, there was not much substance to really get you emotionally involved. But with these two rivalries, they added said substance.
I'm not going to go into the details beind each feud, because many of you are probably already familiar with them. But I'm going to go into some background behind both of them.
In both cases, it started out innocently, with Jericho calling out Michaels on his deceptive tactics to win matches and Punk cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase on Hardy. Eventually, Jericho and Punk turned heel and attacked the beloved Michaels and Hardy. As the feuds continued, personal issues were brought into the mix, with Jericho feeling justified for punching Michaels' wife and Punk calling Hardy out on his drug issues.
Both feuds involved a reverse polarity as you might call it. The one who committed questionable actions and decisions was the good guy while the one who portrayed himself as being honest and noble was the bad guy. Also, to borrow from the movie "Unbreakable," both feuds follow the comic book logic when it comes to heroes and villains. What this means is that the villian is the hero's exact opposite, with Punk's straight-edge lifestyle to Hardy's daredevil lifestyle and Jericho's serious attitude to Michael's flamboyancy.
So with all that said, which rivalry was the better one?
In the past, many rivalries and storylines revolved around the whole arguement of "I'm better than you and I deserve to be champion." Aside from that, there was not much substance to really get you emotionally involved. But with these two rivalries, they added said substance.
I'm not going to go into the details beind each feud, because many of you are probably already familiar with them. But I'm going to go into some background behind both of them.
In both cases, it started out innocently, with Jericho calling out Michaels on his deceptive tactics to win matches and Punk cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase on Hardy. Eventually, Jericho and Punk turned heel and attacked the beloved Michaels and Hardy. As the feuds continued, personal issues were brought into the mix, with Jericho feeling justified for punching Michaels' wife and Punk calling Hardy out on his drug issues.
Both feuds involved a reverse polarity as you might call it. The one who committed questionable actions and decisions was the good guy while the one who portrayed himself as being honest and noble was the bad guy. Also, to borrow from the movie "Unbreakable," both feuds follow the comic book logic when it comes to heroes and villains. What this means is that the villian is the hero's exact opposite, with Punk's straight-edge lifestyle to Hardy's daredevil lifestyle and Jericho's serious attitude to Michael's flamboyancy.
So with all that said, which rivalry was the better one?