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

[klunderbunker]

Um, is your brain fried or are you intentionally being ignorant?


Shawn beat Taker because of Kane. I know you watched that match so dont act like HBK won that all by himself.

Did I say he did? Of course not, because Shawn won the match clean by the rules of the match.

On top of that, Undertaker in 1997 was a far different animal than he was in 2009 when Punk beat him. The whole reason for making the Cell in the first place was because of his rage against Shawn. Punk had basically been the latest guy to irritate Undertaker. To survive 1997 Undertaker means WAY more than surviving him 12 years later.

You know how things work. This is ECW with Heyman & its in Chicago. You know that Punk would be booked to win, by hook or by crook, over HBK. This is an easy decision.

I've said multiple times now: Heyman isn't a factor in this, nor is any other outside interference.

 

[Johnny Scumm]

Um, is your brain fried or are you intentionally being ignorant?


Shawn beat Taker because of Kane. I know you watched that match so dont act like HBK won that all by himself.


You know how things work. This is ECW with Heyman & its in Chicago. You know that Punk would be booked to win, by hook or by crook, over HBK. This is an easy decision.

Nightmare got there before me, but there we go. I actually agree with Coco on this whole Becca scenario by the way, but that's another story.

If Shawn beat taker via interference, and Punk beat him via screw job, you stop wanna compare? Not to mention those two losses to him at WM.

 

[klunderbunker]

Your quote from earlier:


Now look at the main event of WrestleMania 23. When we're talking about HBK vs Cena, that's the big match. When he's in the big match, Shawn Michaels loses more than he wins.

This is CM Punk in his prime in Chicago in a tournament designed to crown the best of all time. It's a big match. Shawn loses.

Except for at Wrestlemania 12, Survivor Series 02, In Your House #7 and the countless other matches where Shawn has risen to the occasion and won.

In their primes, Shawn was better than Punk and that's all there is to it. Look back at 1995 and 1996 and think about all the classics Shawn had and when he flat out didn't lose. There are a lot more than what Punk has done.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Yes, at Wrestlemania 22.

The match was against Vince Mcmahon who was what in his fifties at the time? That hardly makes the Chicago region any less in Punk's favor.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Um, is your brain fried or are you intentionally being ignorant?


Shawn beat Taker because of Kane. I know you watched that match so dont act like HBK won that all by himself.


You know how things work. This is ECW with Heyman & its in Chicago. You know that Punk would be booked to win, by hook or by crook, over HBK. This is an easy decision.

Now now a wins a win, I thought we had that done and dusted?

Can I make a strange analogy here? Who was the biggest dog when HBK was breaking through, Bret Hart right? And HBK beat Hart clean in a 60 minute match right? (Please don't say Shawn cheated, he didn't, fuck's sake just watch the last 5 minutes!)

Punk beat the top dog in Cena, in his hometown clean.


May I call it even? Just for a minute, please, pretty please?




Now HBK has beaten the odds way more and way bigger ones to boot. Against Sid, Diesel, Taker, Vader, Haven't we been through all these names and STRESSED that these are huge odds to overcome no matter what which way they were achieved. Hell In A Cells, No DQs, Casket Matches, Unsanctioned Matches,


Are we to just disregard these feats of underdoggedery and hand Punk a win coz it is his hometown?

The odds stacked against HBK, yes, totally. But has HBK made a career of overcoming insurmountable circumstances? YES

 

[klunderbunker]

The match was against Vince Mcmahon who was what in his fifties at the time? That hardly makes the Chicago region any less in Punk's favor.

Which is still a televised match in Chicago no?

Not to mention one of the wins that Punk is being hyped for in Chicago is against Chris Jericho, who was in his early 40s and a longtime jobber to the stars by then.

But it's Chicago, so Punk can't possibly lose, despite not being as big a deal or as talented as Michaels, right?

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Which is still a televised match in Chicago no?

Not to mention one of the wins that Punk is being hyped for in Chicago is against Chris Jericho, who was in his early 40s and a longtime jobber to the stars by then.

But it's Chicago, so Punk can't possibly lose, despite not being as big a deal or as talented as Michaels, right?

Because Vince was cleaning house in all of his one on one matches at the time right?

Stop pretending a win against someone as talented as Jericho means nothing.

Whether Punk is as big of a deal as Shawn all throughout his career is really irrelevant to this match, Punk is much more important in Chicago than Shawn is, hence why he wins.

 

[Coco]

Except for at Wrestlemania 12, Survivor Series 02, In Your House #7 and the countless other matches where Shawn has risen to the occasion and won.

But if you boil all your silly hype down to its purest form, you're talking about a guy who dominated a weak company for about a year, held the title for a month in 2002, and kept the belt warm for Steve Austin at the end of 1997. And then there's all the big matches he lost. Considering how long he floated around the title scene during his second prime, that's A LOT of big losses. Shawn's batting average is fucked. The man is far from the unbeatable demigod you're making him out to be.

In their primes, Shawn was better than Punk and that's all there is to it.

Except that's not all there is to it at all. WWE hype videos and that stalker whack-job you call a girlfriend might have convinced you otherwise, but Shawn's dominance was a flash in the pan. He and Punk are essentially on the same level. So this match boils down to finding something that gives one man the advantage. And Chicago is that thing. And that advantage goes to Punk.

Look back at 1995 and 1996 and think about all the classics Shawn had and when he flat out didn't lose.

So I'm meant to give utmost consideration to the small window during which Shawn dominated a fledgling, dying company? Yet you think it's unfair to think Punk's Chicago carries great weight? Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

Could your reasoning be any more slanted, selective, and shallow? The world abounds in cunt of every kind. Unless Becca's belts out show-tunes when she queefs, it can't be worth the credibility you're throwing away in the name of it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Because Vince was cleaning house in all of his one on one matches at the time right?

Stop pretending a win against someone as talented as Jericho means nothing.

Whether Punk is as big of a deal as Shawn all throughout his career is really irrelevant to this match, Punk is much more important in Chicago than Shawn is, hence why he wins.

Did I say it meant nothing? No. Did I say it doesn't mean as much as it's made out to? Yes. Did I say it doesn't mean as much/the same as Shawn's win over Jericho in 2003? Yes, because that match was better.

Actually one of the major points of this is their entire career but what would I know about criteria for this?

 

[klunderbunker]

But if you boil all your silly hype down to its purest form, you're talking about a guy who dominated a weak company for about a year, held the title for a month in 2002, and kept the belt warm for Steve Austin at the end of 1997. And then there's all the big matches he lost. Considering how long he floated around the title scene during his second prime, that's A LOT of big losses. Shawn's batting average is fucked. The man is far from the unbeatable demigod you're making him out to be.

When exactly was Punk on top of the company during some great period for it? It wasn't last year, because he didn't even main event a PPV until August.

Shawn does indeed have a so/so track record against top level talent. Punk has a good record against Cena...and then the talent level drops WAY down. I find it hard to be impressed by him beating guys like Miz and a glorified midcarder in Bryan.

Except that's not all there is to it at all. WWE hype videos and that stalker whack-job you call a girlfriend might have convinced you otherwise, but Shawn's dominance was a flash in the pan. He and Punk are essentially on the same level. So this match boils down to finding something that gives one man the advantage. And Chicago is that thing. And that advantage goes to Punk.

A flash in the pan? I'd hardly say that. He was WWF Champion for a good chunk of two years. Punk was WWE Champion for a year and was barely the focus of the company for half of it.

I'd also say that the hardcore rules balance out the Chicago part, as Shawn has far more success in those kind of matches than Punk.

So I'm meant to give utmost consideration to the small window during which Shawn dominated a fledgling, dying company? Yet you think it's unfair to think Punk's Chicago carries great weight? Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

Fledgling? No not really.
Dying? That was far more the next year when Undertaker was on top.

WWF was in trouble in 1996 but it certainly wasn't dying. Yet at least.

Could your reasoning be any more slanted, selective, and shallow?

Oh believe me it could.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

I can't decide who I think will win this one. I do think it being in Chicago helps Punk somewhat because the fans will be behind him 100% but at the same time he's going against Shawn Michaels, Who I consider to be one of the best to ever lace up a pair of boots.

Punk has a much better track record in big matches which is why i'm leaning towards giving him my vote.

My vote is still up in the air though.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Did I say it meant nothing? No. Did I say it doesn't mean as much as it's made out to? Yes. Did I say it doesn't mean as much/the same as Shawn's win over Jericho in 2003? Yes, because that match was better.

Actually one of the major points of this is their entire career but what would I know about criteria for this?

Yes whose entire career means more to Chicago? Punk or Shawn's? Exactly.

Plus you want to talk about Jericho being a jobber to the stars that's basically what Shawn was after Survivor Series 2002 with occasional big wins that meant nothing.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

But if you boil all your silly hype down to its purest form, you're talking about a guy who dominated a weak company for about a year, held the title for a month in 2002, and kept the belt warm for Steve Austin at the end of 1997. And then there's all the big matches he lost. Considering how long he floated around the title scene during his second prime, that's A LOT of big losses. Shawn's batting average is fucked. The man is far from the unbeatable demigod you're making him out to be.

With baited breath I have waited, waited for someone to draw this card. Thank you, thank you so much.


Lets get something straight, you know who called HBK the GREATEST wrestler of all time: Stone Cold Steve Austin

GREATEST Entertainer of all time: Paul Heyman

Now lets rumble, what fucking batting average do you speak of? I'll give you the Shawn circa 97-98 when he was beating giants around him. By the time he came back, he was a glorified icon who was putting green Ortons over and yet, still, he beat the biggest name of that era in Hunter Hearst Helmsley not once but twice (and a bunch of other guys as well) in the Elimination Chamber for the title. Yes then he lost and then drew the Last Man Standing Match. This is against the biggest heel of the 2000s.


And finally, the adorable "dominated a weak company" remark. Awww, you know somewhere down the line, when the stigmata of the steroid scandal was wearing off and wrestling industry was battered and bruised; along came nWo with an angle that hurt every other wrestling promotion bad (so to speak). Shawn Micheals, without a shadow of a doubt is THE unluckiest champion because he rose in prominence during the nWo era. You wanna do Punk ratings vs HBK ratings? Or are you smarter than that?


For the last time, HBK in his prime was the living, breathing image of overcoming in Sunny's mouth the fucking odds!

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes whose entire career means more to Chicago? Punk or Shawn's? Exactly.

Plus you want to talk about Jericho being a jobber to the stars that's basically what Shawn was after Survivor Series 2002 with occasional big wins that meant nothing.

This Chicago argument again. When it reaches the point where that's by far the biggest point of argument that Punk's supporters are using, it tells me that they don't have much else to go on. It really isn't that big of a deal, especially when you consider Shawn going into enemy territory twice before and winning against a bigger deal in Bret and a solid one in Bulldog.

Jericho was jobbing to Evan bourne and Dolph Ziggler. Shawn was trading wins with Kurt Angle.

Advantage: Shawn.

 

[Coco]

When exactly was Punk on top of the company during some great period for it? It wasn't last year, because he didn't even main event a PPV until August.

I'm not going to penalize Punk for existing in the same world as a mega-star like John Cena. Shawn never dealing with those circumstances as champion doesn't make his reigns superior. As I see it, this is another case where they're on nearly even footing in terms of being second-tier guys. And with that being the case, Chicago is the tie-breaker.

Shawn does indeed have a so/so track record against top level talent. Punk has a good record against Cena...and then the talent level drops WAY down. I find it hard to be impressed by him beating guys like Miz and a glorified midcarder in Bryan.

Punk beating world champion Sheamus twice and stopping Ryback's undefeated streak earn him some credibility against top level talent. And then there's his wins over Hardy, Jericho, Mysterio, and Edge, guys whose kayfabe accolades rival and/or dwarf the achievements of many of HBK's best mid-90s contemporaries at the times of their meetings with Shawn.

Fuck Miz and Bryan. The Best in the World has fried bigger fish than them.

I'd also say that the hardcore rules balance out the Chicago part, as Shawn has far more success in those kind of matches than Punk.

A young, inexperienced Punk dispatched hardcore specialist Raven many times in matches with hardcore stipulations. Or the hardcore war he led his faction to victory in against his ROH contemporary Christopher Daneils' faction. He's won two MITB matches and three TLC matches. Then there's the three no disqualification matches he retained his title in during his historic reign. Punk is far from some wet-behind-the-ears rookie in these sorts of contests. He's been competing in them successfully at highest level available to him at every stage of his career. As such, Chicago is still the deciding factor.

Oh believe me it could.

The thread is young. I'm sure you'll surprise us yet.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

This Chicago argument again. When it reaches the point where that's by far the biggest point of argument that Punk's supporters are using, it tells me that they don't have much else to go on. It really isn't that big of a deal, especially when you consider Shawn going into enemy territory twice before and winning against a bigger deal in Bret and a solid one in Bulldog.

Jericho was jobbing to Evan bourne and Dolph Ziggler. Shawn was trading wins with Kurt Angle.

Advantage: Shawn.

1. Don't count the Screwjob as a legitimate win, the bell was rung, in WWE's history book Michaels won the belt but by no means did he actually "win" the match.

2. Bulldog isn't as big of a deal as Punk was or is.

3. This isn't about who Jericho was jobbing to anymore, Shawn was just barely above Chris when it came to jobbing to the stars plus he couldn't even beat Jericho for the belt.

4. John Cena beat Angle multiple times, is a bigger deal than Shawn, and Punk is trading wins with him.

Punk wins.

 

[Coco]

Now lets rumble, what fucking batting average do you speak of? I'll give you the Shawn circa 97-98 when he was beating giants around him. By the time he came back, he was a glorified icon who was putting green Ortons over and yet, still, he beat the biggest name of that era in Hunter Hearst Helmsley not once but twice (and a bunch of other guys as well) in the Elimination Chamber for the title. Yes then he lost and then drew the Last Man Standing Match. This is against the biggest heel of the 2000s.

Shawn lost the war. HIAC at Bad Blood 2004. Yet another case of Shawn failing to win the big one. And then there's that match where he lost the belt back to Triple H a month after he won it. And the match where he failed to win the title at Taboo Tuesday 2004. And the triple threats with Benoit which he failed to win. And the triple threat with Cena which he failed to win. And the second Elimination Chamber which he failed to win. And the Raw Elimination Chamber in 2008 which he failed to win.

When I think about big matches involving HBK and HHH, I see a lot of losses for your guys. Of course I doubt you can see that through the sand you've decided to bury your head in.

And finally, the adorable "dominated a weak company" remark. Awww, you know somewhere down the line, when the stigmata of the steroid scandal was wearing off and wrestling industry was battered and bruised; along came nWo with an angle that hurt every other wrestling promotion bad (so to speak). Shawn Micheals, without a shadow of a doubt is THE unluckiest champion because he rose in prominence during the nWo era. You wanna do Punk ratings vs HBK ratings? Or are you smarter than that?

Smarter than you, that's for certain.

Keep in mind, I've never aggrandized Punk's achievements. I've put everything in context to show that he's on the same level as HBK. And in the name of putting things in context, it's worth noting that if Shawn were worth a damn as a draw, you wouldn't need excuses about steroid scandals and the nWo. A draw is a draw. End of story.

Punk and Shawn are just about dead even in most ways. So the difference comes down to Chicago. Punk wins.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I'm not going to penalize Punk for existing in the same world as a mega-star like John Cena. Shawn never dealing with those circumstances as champion doesn't make his reigns superior.

So Punk existing in Cena land is fine. But HBK wrestling his chapless pants of when the nWo was all kinds of red hot is him "dominating a weak company"?






Hi there, this is you friendly neighbouhood PaperGhost. I see that this is the company of Punk voters out there at the moment en masses. Some are decent I know.


Now come on, remember Shawn? Remember him wincing, and shaking his head in pain? Collapsing in the ring? Almost getting eliminated at the Rumble? Wasn't that a cool moment. Weren't they all cool moments how he would turn them around and WIN any way possible?

HBK people, H.B.K

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not going to penalize Punk for existing in the same world as a mega-star like John Cena. Shawn never dealing with those circumstances as champion doesn't make his reigns superior. As I see it, this is another case where they're on nearly even footing in terms of being second-tier guys. And with that being the case, Chicago is the tie-breaker.

To clarify, I'm not saying this is dominance by Shawn. Punk does indeed have stuff on his resume that Shawn can't match. However, Shawn's resume is against better overall competition and over a much longer span than Punk. Punk really only got hot a year and a half ago and then cooled WAY down until about July of 2012.

As for dealing with a mega star, Bret in 1996/7 was a mega star in his own right. Not as big as Cena, but big enough to overshadow Shawn, which he didn't always do.

Punk beating world champion Sheamus twice and stopping Ryback's undefeated streak earn him some credibility against top level talent.

Sheamus yes. Ryback....don't you have to actually win something to be considered top level?

And then there's his wins over Hardy, Jericho, Mysterio, and Edge, guys whose kayfabe accolades rival and/or dwarf the achievements of many of HBK's best mid-90s contemporaries at the times of their meetings with Shawn.

Hasn't Shawn beaten all of those guys too?

As for comparing them to the 90s guys:

Bret > Edge, ridiculous amount of title wins aside.

Diesel > Mysterio and Hardy. Yeah they both won world titles, but none of those reigns ever meant anything. Diesel held the title for a year and defended it against some very strong competition. Shawn beat him in a hardcore style match.

As for Jericho, he does indeed have a lot of title wins, but at the end of the day most of his reigns meant very little.

As usual, it's the difference between quality of title reigns and quantity of them, and most of the 2000s champions' reigns rarely meant much of anything.

A young, inexperienced Punk dispatched hardcore specialist Raven many times in matches with hardcore stipulations.

He was so special that he lost the title to Crash Holly how many times?

Or the hardcore war he led his faction to victory in against his ROH contemporary Christopher Daneils' faction.

Again, doesn't DAniels have to actually win something for those matches to mean something?

He's won two MITB matches and three TLC matches.

I'd hardly call winning matches where you have to climb a ladder to be the same as matches by pinfall, especially when one was over Miz and Del Rio.

Again: Undertaker in the Cell and HHH in a no holds barred match > all five of those wins combined.

Then there's the three no disqualification matches he retained his title in during his historic reign.

Against inferior competition. He also lost to Kane of all people in a No DQ match a few weeks back.

Punk is far from some wet-behind-the-ears rookie in these sorts of contests. He's been competing in them successfully at highest level available to him at every stage of his career. As such, Chicago is still the deciding factor.

He is however wet behind the ears against talent like Shawn in matches like these. Guys like Raven, Miz and Del rio don't scream highest level to me.

 

[klunderbunker]

1. Don't count the Screwjob as a legitimate win, the bell was rung, in WWE's history book Michaels won the belt but by no means did he actually "win" the match.

Bret came into the match as champion and lost the title by submission.

Shawn won.

2. Bulldog isn't as big of a deal as Punk was or is.

In England? Don't make me laugh.

3. This isn't about who Jericho was jobbing to anymore, Shawn was just barely above Chris when it came to jobbing to the stars plus he couldn't even beat Jericho for the belt.

No, but I'd say the win over Jericho in 2003 was A, a better match and B, a bigger match than any of their matches in 2008.

4. John Cena beat Angle multiple times, is a bigger deal than Shawn, and Punk is trading wins with him.

And Shawn beat Cena twice by pin in the middle of the ring. What's your point?

 

[Coco]

So Punk existing in Cena land is fine. But HBK wrestling his chapless pants of when the nWo was all kinds of red hot is him "dominating a weak company"?

Punk held the top title in the top company in the industry for an extended period. Even if it was under Cena for half his reign, he did it.

With the nWo as hot as it was, it's hard for me to say that HBK was in the same position for most of his run. It's still the WWF Championship. But at the time, it was like a more prestigious version of the TNA Championship.

In that spirit, you should be happy that I'd say Shawn and Punk are on relatively even footing.

Still, Chicago. Even footing is gone. Advantage: Punk.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Punk held the top title in the top company in the industry for an extended period. Even if it was under Cena for half his reign, he did it.

Yes he did, see I see the equal footing analogy. Punk beat a helluva odds too. But HBK's whole prime, legacy is built on jumping gargantuan hurdles

With the nWo as hot as it was, it's hard for me to say that HBK was in the same position for most of his run. It's still the WWF Championship. But at the time, it was like a more prestigious version of the TNA Championship.

No it wasn't. That's just your matter of opinion. The fact is the WCW Heavyweight strap was a fucking after-thought because nWo was just so much bigger of a hoopla. Even when Shawn lost his smile, the belt was important.

In that spirit, you should be happy that I'd say Shawn and Punk are on relatively even footing.

Still, Chicago. Even footing is gone. Advantage: Punk.

Yes they are Cumsock with the Gooseslug, but HBK has had more experience beating them motherfucking odds. You keep stackin' em and he is just a kick away.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Bret came into the match as champion and lost the title by submission.

Shawn won.

Bret never tapped, Vince just didn't want to Bret to leave the company with the title. Nowhere near a legitimate win for Shawn unless you believe everything WWE tells you.

In England? Don't make me laugh.

Were in Chicago, Punk is a bigger deal in Chicago, keep up.

EDIT: No Punk's a bigger deal in Chicago then Bulldog is in England.

No, but I'd say the win over Jericho in 2003 was A, a better match and B, a bigger match than any of their matches in 2008.

Yes technically still only beating Jericho when it didn't matter.

And Shawn beat Cena twice by pin in the middle of the ring. What's your point?

All when it didn't matter, hence why Shawn was a jobber to the stars and loses to Punk here.

 

[Coco]

To clarify, I'm not saying this is dominance by Shawn. Punk does indeed have stuff on his resume that Shawn can't match. However, Shawn's resume is against better overall competition and over a much longer span than Punk.

I honestly don't see Shawn's competition as better. Aside from feuding with a Steve Austin who was just hitting his stride, I tend to find that Shawn's competition gets grossly overrated on account of hindsight bias.

Punk really only got hot a year and a half ago and then cooled WAY down until about July of 2012.

I hope the implication here isn't that a heel turn helped Punk. Because his feud with Bryan was easily the biggest thing the company had going into MITB and he was still generating thunderous face responses and fat merch sales. The heel turn cast Punk in a different light where he didn't need to be under Cena as a face any more, but I don't think it made him a bigger deal.

As for dealing with a mega star, Bret in 1996/7 was a mega star in his own right. Not as big as Cena, but big enough to overshadow Shawn, which he didn't always do.

I've never bought Bret as a megastar. The screwjob and the Canada vs US stuff raised his stock higher than it ever was for most of his career, but I think he's a guy who benefits a lot from people looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses.

Sheamus yes. Ryback....don't you have to actually win something to be considered top level?

Yes and no. Ryback was easily the hottest thing in the company at a point and a smarter booker probably would have put him over Punk. He didn't sustain his momentum, but Punk surviving his initial push is as big a deal as many of HBK's biggest victories.

Hasn't Shawn beaten all of those guys too?

As far as I know, Mysterio has never lost to HBK. As far as I know, Hardy is also undefeated against Michaels. As for Edge, Shawn lost to a pre-prime Edge at the Rumble in 2005. Meanwhile, a pre-prime Punk beat a prime Edge in 2009. I'd say Punk's got an edge there.

As for comparing them to the 90s guys:

Bret > Edge, ridiculous amount of title wins aside.

This is far from an open and shut case, as the 2009 WZ tournament will attest to.

Diesel > Mysterio and Hardy. Yeah they both won world titles, but none of those reigns ever meant anything. Diesel held the title for a year and defended it against some very strong competition. Shawn beat him in a hardcore style match.

Diesel had strong competition? That's news to me.

I'd take Hardy over Diesel any day of the week. Clean wins over Trips, HBK, Edge, and even Punk mean more to me than Diesel barely drawing against Bret and laying out Mabel.

As usual, it's the difference between quality of title reigns and quantity of them, and most of the 2000s champions' reigns rarely meant much of anything.

And yet look at the company that Diesel, HBK, and Bret dominated. In that sense, I think you give the champions of yesteryear too much credit.

He was so special that he lost the title to Crash Holly how many times?

In an indy context, Raven was a big deal and Punk was a nobody at the time. It was a major draw for ROH. Pretending it means nothing because Raven didn't pan out in the WWF misses the point.

Again, doesn't DAniels have to actually win something for those matches to mean something?

Again, I contextualized it in relative to where Punk was in his career.

I'd hardly call winning matches where you have to climb a ladder to be the same as matches by pinfall

I'll just roll my eyes at this bit and move on.

When Hogan takes another unfortunate ladder match loss this year, hopefully you can take solace in the fact that he didn't really lose.

Again: Undertaker in the Cell and HHH in a no holds barred match > all five of those wins combined.

Considering the circumstances of the Taker win, no. Not even remotely.

Against inferior competition. He also lost to Kane of all people in a No DQ match a few weeks back.

Will Undertaker be distracting Punk to give Michaels his victory here?

Oh, no? Great. Moving on.

He is however wet behind the ears against talent like Shawn in matches like these. Guys like Raven, Miz and Del rio don't scream highest level to me.

He essentially fought Triple H to a draw at Night of Champions (the match was dead even before interference fucked everything up). Jericho and Bryan owe much of their style to Shawn and Punk's put them both down in these kinds of matches. Jeff Hardy is an expert in TLC. Mark Henry went down to Punk in No Holds Barred mere months after his Hall of Pain title reign. And on the indies, Raven was top talent and great seasoning for a young Punk.

Whatever you think Punk is lacking in terms of competition, he isn't.

Besides, Chicago is the difference maker. Advantage: Punk.

 

[wrestlingfan]

I'll have to give it to Shawn, Came back from injury to beat a prime HHH in a hardcore setting, and has beaten Jericho a wrestler similar to Punk in both style, and size in an Unsanctioned Match.