Int'l Region, DC Subregion, First Round: (7) CM Punk vs. (26) Buddy Rogers

[klunderbunker]

This is a first 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.

#26. Buddy Rogers

​

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.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Interesting match-up here, though I can't say it's between two of my favourite. Rogers, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this tournament is remembered as a major icon because Vince McMahon remembers him so. Given that Vince controls 95% of the mainstream wrestling output, this is something he has been able to sustain for years and years. He's important and should figure here, but that's about it.

CM Punk is somewhat overrated too. How Lesnar is an 11th seed while Punk is a 7th is a slight mystery but there we are. He was champion in a period where he had no right holding the belt that long, but he did. That helps his case as does the fact that both men had their greatest success as heels, and they both used an any means necessary policy in terms of winning matches, something Rogers pioneered but Punk really was able to perfect, winning a belt and holding it for well over 400 days in WWE, in the modern era is nigh on impossible and yet he did it. I think that has to give Punk the edge here.

 

[Bernkastel]

Both are overrated, but at least Buddy Rogers drew money in the top spot while Punk did not. I'd probably give the nod in charisma to Rogers as he clearly had a way of connecting to audiences in a way Punk did not. You could argue this, but if Punk were really that good at connecting with audiences he would have been more successful overall. Longevity seems to be split. Neither seemed to be the "top star" for any longer than a few years. Rogers prime was short, while Punk wasn't even main-eventing while champion. Consistency as a top star I'd probably give to Punk, though it's close. Accolades I'm leaning towards Buddy Rogers. Yes, Punk was a multiple time WWE champion, but Rogers held world titles everywhere, including the NWA and was WWE's default first champion. He was always considered a "top tier" world champion in a time period before the NWA, where there were multiple world champions promoters fans and promoters recognized. When Punk was champion he was still overshadowed internally. Despite there being no outside competition to the WWE. In ring skill and ability I'm leaning towards Rogers, as it took me years to warm up to Punk's wrestling style. Rogers was smooth from the start. But once I did, I quickly saw the value Punk brought as a versatile worker.

Overall legacy has to go to Rogers, as Punk as probably all but destroyed his. But I will give the man credit. He has long criticized the WWE as an industry that has revealed secrets to the general public that they should not know. And thus has continuously destroyed their credibility. And instead of representing that kind of industry, he made the decision to jump to a more legit one. I personally hope Punk stays in MMA and never returns to pro wrestling.

All things considered I'm going with Rogers. But Punk deserves the credit where it's due.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Uhhh wow well this is a strange fantasy match here.

Gorgeous George is someone who inspired Bob Dylan, had an impression on Muhammad Ali, and probably was the first sports entertainer ever. Great chicken shit heel, drew like a motherfucker and had the bumping art down. I have actually watched his matches. Oh he did a beautiful 'dont touch me' routine.

Punk, well I never really thought he was anything great in the ring. He did go mad over though and his peak was from 2011-13ish.

I think I lean Punk. He beat a few chicken shit heels in that epic title run and cracked the top 5 (if memory serves me) in the all time WWE championship reign.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

Both are overrated, but at least Buddy Rogers drew money in the top spot while Punk did not. I'd probably give the nod in charisma to Rogers as he clearly had a way of connecting to audiences in a way Punk did not. You could argue this, but if Punk were really that good at connecting with audiences he would have been more successful overall. Longevity seems to be split. Neither seemed to be the "top star" for any longer than a few years. Rogers prime was short, while Punk wasn't even main-eventing while champion. Consistency as a top star I'd probably give to Punk, though it's close. Accolades I'm leaning towards Buddy Rogers. Yes, Punk was a multiple time WWE champion, but Rogers held world titles everywhere, including the NWA and was WWE's default first champion. He was always considered a "top tier" world champion in a time period before the NWA, where there were multiple world champions promoters fans and promoters recognized. When Punk was champion he was still overshadowed internally. Despite there being no outside competition to the WWE. In ring skill and ability I'm leaning towards Rogers, as it took me years to warm up to Punk's wrestling style. Rogers was smooth from the start. But once I did, I quickly saw the value Punk brought as a versatile worker.

Overall legacy has to go to Rogers, as Punk as probably all but destroyed his. But I will give the man credit. He has long criticized the WWE as an industry that has revealed secrets to the general public that they should not know. And thus has continuously destroyed their credibility. And instead of representing that kind of industry, he made the decision to jump to a more legit one. I personally hope Punk stays in MMA and never returns to pro wrestling.

All things considered I'm going with Rogers. But Punk deserves the credit where it's due.

Not to mention, Rogers was booked extremely strong for more than a decade in major promotions. Punk was never booked that dominant, at least at a higher level than the indies.

 

[Tastycles]

Rogers was a bit of a charlatan by many accounts, not least Lou Thesz, who felt that he did not deserve to be on the same level as many other stars of the day. I guess there are some parallels with Punk in a way. Its certainly difficult to pick the logical winner here, but I think I'm going to go with Punk, because his success was kind of against the odds.

 

[Bernkastel]

Rogers was a bit of a charlatan by many accounts, not least Lou Thesz, who felt that he did not deserve to be on the same level as many other stars of the day. I guess there are some parallels with Punk in a way. Its certainly difficult to pick the logical winner here, but I think I'm going to go with Punk, because his success was kind of against the odds.

Despite that though, Punk was not a drawing champion. He failed in his role as a champion. Rogers may not have had the longevity as many of his counterparts, but he was still a mega draw as champion, and for years didn't even need the belt to be a top star.

I can probably chalk up Punk's victory as a causality of people not knowing the era, because Punk's overrated when we all realize that he failed in his role in the current era. And he had several more advantages that Rogers and others just didn't have. Freedom of expression anyone? Pipebomb?

 

[Tastycles]

Despite that though, Punk was not a drawing champion. He failed in his role as a champion. Rogers may not have had the longevity as many of his counterparts, but he was still a mega draw as champion, and for years didn't even need the belt to be a top star.

I can probably chalk up Punk's victory as a causality of people not knowing the era, because Punk's overrated when we all realize that he failed in his role in the current era. And he had several more advantages that Rogers and others just didn't have. Freedom of expression anyone? Pipebomb?

He wasn't a mega draw as champion, that's why his NWA reign was considerably shorter than all of the other ones of the same era. More people watch Raw weekly than the combined live audiences of Rogers' title reign, it isn't sensible to compare them as draws.

If you think that Punk had freedom of expression and that the pipebomb was anything but a scripted promo, you have proven that wrestling fans can still be duped in the internet age. Punk said nothing which had not been publicly acknowledged previously on WWE programming.

You can say 'Punk failed in his role', but what was his role? He kept the WWE's audience consistent whilst Cena was recharging, helped to introduce the Shield - where the WWE were nurturing their future programme and gave a credible transition to The Rock being the champion. Rogers role was supposed to be a NWA champion, supporting promoters across the country, something he failed in, then he was supposed to be the WWF's big launchpad star, but again he wasn't.

Punk isn't one of the all time greats, but neither was Rogers.

 

[Gelgarin]

The idea that CM Punk failed as a national champion while Buddy Rogers did not is laughable.

So we have two mildly overrated, but competent performers, both notorious for being a bit of a shit bag outside of the ring. I'm going to vote for Punk, since Punk managed to achieve success on a national level, while Buddy Rogers did not. As NWA champion, Rogers typically refused to work outside the East Coast since he couldn't reliably draw in the other territories. He was a bone thrown to the CWC to assist their NWA breakaway - not a national draw.

Additionally, Rogers period of being a relevant draw, even on the East Coast, was atypically short for the era. Literally 90% of Rogers major gates came between the years of 1960 and 1963. Before that he was playing professional second banana to Rocca, and at the end he insinuated a heart attack, took his ball and went home. Punk achieved relevance for longer, in an era when there's a revolving door for talent.

I don't much like either man, but this one is pretty easy. Punk wins.