ECW Region, Third Round, Hardcore Match: (3) Shawn Michaels vs. (6) CM Punk

[Alex]

This is a hardcore match. Both men have experience with weapons and the like. Here's the tipping point (in my opinion)

CM Punk is more sadistic. Sure Michaels can go in a hardcore setting and has done okay in these scenarios (beating Triple H etc)

But Punk fucking beat Raven. Raven, arguably one of wrestlings most sadistic minds. He's beaten Jeff Hardy in his speciality ladder match (I know not the same match, but the principle with the weapons applies)

Sure Michaels is tough as nails but so is Punk. So to me it would come down to who would last longer and while it would be a brutal and enjoyable match I'd have to give it to Punk by the skin of his teeth for being just that more messed up in the head.

 

[klunderbunker]

In the context of where he was at the time, they meant everything. Punk got to be a huge draw for ROH and I've mentioned some of his biggest matches and feuds from that organization in this thread. I think drawing with Joe in Chicago, beating Rave in a cage, beating the Briscoes for the tag titles, the Saints vs Prophecy war, and Punk vs Raven all have a place in this thread as they speak to success (relative to where he was at that point in his career) in no holds barred environments and Chicago. And I refuse to overlook that because it was the independent scene. As far as matches on the indies go, these were big time.

Indeed they were big. Back then. With so many other major wins for Punk, those really do pale in comparison. Shawn has several big wins when he was in the midcard and lower which aren't even worth bringing up given how much else he's accomplished.

I think all of these hold far more weight than the house show matches you brought up, which when looked at in the context of Punk's WWE career mean nothing.

I didn't say they were his biggest losses ever. Merely that Punk isn't unstoppable in Chicago. If nothing else he's lost there twice on PPV and once on Raw as WWE Champion. In three of his biggest matches ever in the WWE in Chicago, he's 0-3.

Do you think that's a strong enough record to put against Punk's Chicago record? I don't.

One was arguably the biggest story in wrestling history so I'd say yes, considering Punk's major wins in Chicago consist of two.

We've been over this and I'm still calling it a wash.

And I'm still calling you entirely wrong.



Forty percent of which were meaningless house shows.
[/QUOTE]

Alright. Factor those two out and he's 2-2 on PPV there. That's not exactly great.

 

[Coco]

Indeed they were big. Back then. With so many other major wins for Punk, those really do pale in comparison.

That's not the point. The point is that they were big matches in Chicago that Punk win.

Shawn has several big wins when he was in the midcard and lower which aren't even worth bringing up given how much else he's accomplished.

If you had a point worth making based on those matches, I'd listen. But you probably don't have such a point as most people's knowledge of HBK is derived solely from video packages and loose talk about a few big matches.

I didn't say they were his biggest losses ever. Merely that Punk isn't unstoppable in Chicago.

Which, once again, I never said he was. This is far from some great victory for you.

If nothing else he's lost there twice on PPV and once on Raw as WWE Champion. In three of his biggest matches ever in the WWE in Chicago, he's 0-3.

Lol. He lost a gauntlet on a filler Raw, and midcard matches that meant nothing on the PPVs. These aren't close to three of his biggest matches.

One was arguably the biggest story in wrestling history so I'd say yes, considering Punk's major wins in Chicago consist of two.

Major wins relative to where Punk was on the card is more than two.

And I'm still calling you entirely wrong.

So let's call it a day and go get some dinner or something.

Alright. Factor those two out and he's 2-2 on PPV there. That's not exactly great.

3-2, actually. The three having a title on the line. He wins the BIG matches.

 

[klunderbunker]

That's not the point. The point is that they were big matches in Chicago that Punk win.

Good for him. They still mean far less than almost anything he's done in WWE.

If you had a point worth making based on those matches, I'd listen. But you probably don't have such a point as most people's knowledge of HBK is derived solely from video packages and loose talk about a few big matches.

I'd hardly consider myself on the same knowledge level as most fans.

Which, once again, I never said he was. This is far from some great victory for you.

It is when the vast majority of arguments I've seen here is "IT'S CHICAGO SO PUNK WINS!" That's rather short sighted and stupid.

Lol. He lost a gauntlet on a filler Raw, and midcard matches that meant nothing on the PPVs. These aren't close to three of his biggest matches.

Pay Per Views and a match as Champion in his hometown aren't big? I'd think they are, given the others he's had in Chicago.

Major wins relative to where Punk was on the card is more than two.

I'd put his win over BUlldog in Manchester above a good number of Punk's wins in Chicago.

3-2, actually. The three having a title on the line. He wins the BIG matches.

MITB
NOC 10
WM 28
Judgment Day 07

What am I missing?

 

[MaverickMeyer]

It's definitely Shawn. He's tougher than Punk, and has a finisher that can come at any time and end the match.

 

[JJYanks121]

This is about as even a match as you can get. Similar size, neither guy benefits from the stipulation of the match, and both guys have similar career attributes.

See, both guys had long title reigns that didn't draw all that well. Both guys have defeated big names in their careers. Both guys are incredibly overrated by their respective fanbases. Both guys are nice talents but neither are THE star.

Tough one and I'm still not sure who to go with.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

This is a hardcore match. Both men have experience with weapons and the like. Here's the tipping point (in my opinion)

CM Punk is more sadistic. Sure Michaels can go in a hardcore setting and has done okay in these scenarios (beating Triple H etc)

But Punk fucking beat Raven. Raven, arguably one of wrestlings most sadistic minds. He's beaten Jeff Hardy in his speciality ladder match (I know not the same match, but the principle with the weapons applies)

Sure Michaels is tough as nails but so is Punk. So to me it would come down to who would last longer and while it would be a brutal and enjoyable match I'd have to give it to Punk by the skin of his teeth for being just that more messed up in the head.

Micheals beat a full time Chris Jericho in an unsanctioned match in 2008. Hunter in 2002. Both these matches were brutal. Both times it looked like he'd lose but he still won. He has traded wins with Cena on consecutive Raws. He drew TWICE with Goldberg on consecutive Raws.
If people think he is a choker with big names, top names, HE AIN'T! He held his mettle against them all.

Micheals' finisher adds to this as well. The Sweet Chin Music comes outta no where and BAM! He beat Sid clean, Diesel clean, Bret clean. He has a great resume of going over top guys, big guys, in brutal environments and that is the whole allure of his legacy.

 

[jmt225]

I think Punk and HBK are equal in terms of talent and even success. I also think in terms of kayfabe both are equal. If they fought 10 times, Punk would win 5 and HBK would win 5. The match being in Chicago gives Punk the slight edge in the kayfabe aspect, but I ultimately voted for Punk because I simply like him more. That's really all in comes down to in a fight with two guys as equally matched-up as Punk and HBK... who do you like better? For me, that guy is the current best wrestler in the World, CM Punk. I'm a big Shawn Michaels fan too, but CM Punk is on a whole other wave length as far as entertaining me and I had to go with him for that reason alone.

 

[Loveless]

Face HBK, 9 years past his prime, takes on face Cena in London and beats him absolutely clean.

Face Punk, in the biggest match of his life, takes on (a slightly past his prime) Cena in his home town and still cannot get the clean win. He then fails again to get the clean win at Summerslam.

Punk isn't on the same level as HBK & never has been.

 

[deem]

Face HBK, 9 years past his prime, takes on face Cena in London and beats him absolutely clean.

Face Punk, in the biggest match of his life, takes on (a slightly past his prime) Cena in his home town and still cannot get the clean win. He then fails again to get the clean win at Summerslam.

Punk isn't on the same level as HBK & never has been.

I know I voted for Punk, but I looked into this and you could of expanded the point further imo. Combined TV and PPV, Michaels has 4 wins to Cena's 2. Meanwhile, Cena has 10 to Punks 9.

It's kinda irrelevant though as looking solely at PPV (the big stage, like this) Cena won his match against Shawn and lost 2 drawn 1 against CM Punk. I'd certainly take two unclean wins and an unclean draw over one clean loss.

And this isn't a battle between "who is best against John Cena" anyway, it's entirely different.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Face HBK, 9 years past his prime, takes on face Cena in London and beats him absolutely clean.

Face Punk, in the biggest match of his life, takes on (a slightly past his prime) Cena in his home town and still cannot get the clean win. He then fails again to get the clean win at Summerslam.

Punk isn't on the same level as HBK & never has been.

Are you joking?

First of all, yes, Michaels beat Cena clean in London. Congratulations, you can get the job done when there's absolutely no pressure on you. By the way, it still took him a fucking hour to put Cena down. At WM23 in the main event with the title on the line, he lost to Cena squeaky clean.

I'm also not going to sit here and say that Punk's win over Cena at MitB was clean, it wasn't. I've been scolded on that before. However, it was his absolute biggest match ever and he got it done. And in what way was Cena slightly past his prime? The way I see it, his prime is far from over.

Punk is absolutely on the same level as HBK, I'd argue that he's on a little higher of one.