WCW Region, Fourth Round, TLC Match: (2) Andre The Giant vs. (11) CM Punk

[Larry]

Maybe, somehow, this just hasn't quite been put into perspective, the right way? We've been routinely educated about the exalted one, CM Punk, and all his glory. Now let me ask the pundits this: Under any criteria, by any measure you choose to judge, in exactly what area is Andre so seriously lacking, as to lose this match? What exactly is it that he is incapable of doing that you think prevents him from winning this match, in just the fashion many are trying to explain he would? What do you really think is going to stop him? I put it this way because largely what I've witnessed thus far are arguments as to why Punk could or would win, but why don't you explain more clearly why Andre would lose, there's a difference between the two.

Using some of the questions I asked above you can get a grasp on how that is so, it's a different type of explanation, another side of the coin. In order for Andre to lose he would have to be inferior to CM Punk is some varying degrees for everything in his advantage to be thwarted. So how is it that Andre doesn't measure up? The argument has been made even by Punk supporters that the stipulation doesn't actually favor one man or the other since they can both use weapons equally and it's been established that both can climb the ladder. So then you have to get down to a tale of the tape, and you're going to need a fuck-ton of measuring tape because Andre is HUGE. Physically he is just overwhelming.

Now if all the little boys and girls in Mr. McMahon's Neighborhood take a trip into the land of make-believe, there are all kinds of scenarios where we can imagine how CM Punk could come in like Jesus in the Rapture, slay the beast, and come out successfully as the champion of mankind. But, since this match is taking into account, REALITY, that's not at all likely to happen. It really is as simple as that. There is no measure by which Andre is inferior, or where any viable weakness he may have is not made up for with other attributes?

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Then you just haven't read nthe thread. People have been making ridiculous statements like that Andre would knock him out with one move, from page One on.

[YOUTUBE]DINtqRw3Xkc[/YOUTUBE]​

And it's just as often that a wrestler that has more experience in a specific match type wins. And that when one wrestler has zero experience in a specific match, the majority of the time, they lose..

And what about Punk's experience of being dominated by giants? Has that become redundant?

Plus, Tasty more than rebuked this argument in regards to TLC matches...

The first thing I'm going to say is that people need to be less shit at physics. Two men standing at different points on a ladder with a combined weight greater than Andre's is not the same as one man standing on a ladder in the same place. So that argument for him not being too big for the ladder is wrong. However, if the people making that argument had ever watched wrestling, they'd know that wrestling loves shit like "specially reinforced ladders". So it's a pointless argument.

Secondly, if Andre is at the top of a ladder, it's easier, not harder for Punk to topple the ladder, because he doesn't have to push it very far for the turning moment to be reached. Again though, nobody should be making the argument in the first place, because it wouldn't happen.

Punk has experience in ladder matches, sure, but so what? Let's look at the history of TLC to see if experience makes a difference:

TLC 1: Edge and Christian win, all parties have equal experience
TLC 2: Edge and Christian win, all parties have equal experience
TLC 3: Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho win, they have the least experience
TLC 4: Kane wins, from the only team without any experience
TLC 5: Edge wins, has most experience
TLC 6: Cena wins, has least experience
TLC 7: Edge wins, has most experience
TLC 8: CM Punk wins, has least experience
TLC 9: DX win, have least experience
TLC 10: Miz wins, equal experience
TLC 11: Edge wins, has most experience
TLC 12: Punk wins, has equal experience

So, of the 12 matches, 4 matches involved people with equal experience, 5 involve the team with the least experience winning, and 3 involve the guy with the most experience winning, and all of those instances were Edge. It's starting to look like rather than experience being a factor, Edge is just good at TLC matches. Well, beating the elderly and Mexicans in them anyway.

What is Punk going to do to beat Andre to climb up the ladder anyway? Ladder matches almost always end with a huge spot. What could Punk do to Andre that was huge? Nil. Andre wins.

Yes, because smaller wrestlers have NEVER ever staged comebacks against larger wrestlers, especially in gimmick matches that favor them.

Evidence please of a large good guy vs small good guy gimmick match where the small guy does this and wins? You're highlighting the valiant small face versus monster heel scenario, this does not apply here.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Then you just haven't read nthe thread. People have been making ridiculous statements like that Andre would knock him out with one move, from page One on.

I have, from before the poll even opened. The arguement that Andre would win by one punch was brought up to refute the whole 'Punk would stay out of reach and chair shot Andre's legs' arguement. Both are possible scenerios, but both are unlikely. Andre winning this match does not rely on this scenerio, Punks winning of it does.

And it's just as often that a wrestler that has more experience in a specific match type wins. And that when one wrestler has zero experience in a specific match, the majority of the time, they lose.

Unforntunately, that has been disproved. In fact Punk won this match 3 times, as pointed out in this thread as his vast experience, yet all times he had equal or less experience. By your logic Punk should be 2-1.

Yes, because smaller wrestlers have NEVER ever staged comebacks against larger wrestlers, especially in gimmick matches that favor them.

Of course they have. In fact one I would not have an arguement with is if Punk pushed the ladder over with Andre on it and Andre either fell into the ropes and became entangled or fell completely out of the ring. Then I think Punk climbs up and wins. Problem is, 90 out of 100 times I believe Andre wins. I think there are that many more logical scenerios in which Andre wins compared to Punk.

Maybe, somehow, this just hasn't quite been put into perspective, the right way? We've been routinely educated about the exalted one, CM Punk, and all his glory. Now let me ask the pundits this: Under any criteria, by any measure you choose to judge, in exactly what area is Andre so seriously lacking, as to lose this match? What exactly is it that he is incapable of doing that you think prevents him from winning this match, in just the fashion many are trying to explain he would? What do you really think is going to stop him? I put it this way because largely what I've witnessed thus far are arguments as to why Punk could or would win, but why don't you explain more clearly why Andre would lose, there's a difference between the two.

Using some of the questions I asked above you can get a grasp on how that is so, it's a different type of explanation, another side of the coin. In order for Andre to lose he would have to be inferior to CM Punk is some varying degrees for everything in his advantage to be thwarted. So how is it that Andre doesn't measure up? The argument has been made even by Punk supporters that the stipulation doesn't actually favor one man or the other since they can both use weapons equally and it's been established that both can climb the ladder. So then you have to get down to a tale of the tape, and you're going to need a fuck-ton of measuring tape because Andre is HUGE. Physically he is just overwhelming.

Now if all the little boys and girls in Mr. McMahon's Neighborhood take a trip into the land of make-believe, there are all kinds of scenarios where we can imagine how CM Punk could come in like Jesus in the Rapture, slay the beast, and come out successfully as the champion of mankind. But, since this match is taking into account, REALITY, that's not at all likely to happen. It really is as simple as that. There is no measure by which Andre is inferior, or where any viable weakness he may have is not made up for with other attributes?

I think this maybe says it perfect. While Punk could win, Andre should win. Of course there are some scenerios in which Punk could grasp an advantage, but for every one Andre has more.

 

[Slyfox696]

Deep down I know Punk would find a way.

Ahh, that's so much better than using logic or reason.

So says the master of psychology and rules of the oldschool.

So says common sense.

Irrelevant to wrestling.

Exactly, it's irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to get you to understand. Your comment is irrelevant. What other people did in the past has no bearing on what happens in the future.

Punk is faster, fact. Punk has won these types of matches, fact.

Agreed, but with the qualifier you cannot deny. Punk has not won these matches with someone like Andre. Fact.

Punk has had a better run with the belt, fact. He has held it longer, fact.

What's your point? Have we not already discussed the difference? Pretty certain I've educated you on why Andre not winning the title is more impressive than Punk winning the title and working midcard feuds.

He beat the biggest draw in his company in a title match, fact.

So did Andre. Fact.

Hogan > Cena

Fact.

Punk wrestles a hybrid martial arts style, fact.

Andre was a legendary drinker. Fact.

It's just as relevant.

Punk uses his style to his advantage to exploit opponents weaknesses, fact.

Andre uses his style to his advantage to dominate opponents, fact.

You are REALLY stretching now.

Based on criteria you choose.

No, it's written in the very first post of the thread which YOU referenced earlier. Once again, you're trying to double back on your speak when you've been proven wrong.

You think your way is best and I think my way is the best.

Yes, but only my way passes the test of logic and common sense. Your's is just blind bias.

Nicknamed the Giant, strong, tall, weighs alot, wears black singlet.

Bald head, black trunks, world champions, goatee...

See how easy that is? But no one would say Austin and Goldberg are the same thing. Amusing how you keep ignoring the fact I've continually proven you wrong.

Smaller guys, good in ladder matches, quick, uses a hybrid martial arts style. Although RVD likes his herb, Punk doesnt. Similar but different.

Not at all. Just because RVD and Punk use kicks does not mean they are anything alike. Punk is not quick and he can't jump high. Punk doens't work a primarily aerial offense. Punk isn't a spot monkey. You're stretching again, because you know you've getting your ass kicked all thread long.

I see the similarities, you see the differences.

I see the truth, and you see whatever you can stretch to try and make a point.

"Dont give him the belt, we wont get it back"

"What if he wants it and threatens to eat us?"

No, you've misunderstood. Not surprising.

It's not that Andre was angry about losing the title. It's that the promoters would not have a reasonable way to get the title off of him, which made sense in the show. Andre was so dominant, it wouldn't make sense for him to lose the match.

You have no comprehension of pro wrestling.

"Kayfabe screwjob. Then we will just vacate the title"

There was no such thing when Andre worked. Promoters and wrestlers alike worked very hard to protect the image of the business. They didn't perform "kayfabe screwjobs" because it would expose the business as scripted, and they didn't do that kind of thing.

Again, you have ZERO comprehension of pro wrestling.

So now you are trying to compare Backlund to Punk? Jeez, at least my comparison made sense. Ohhh, quick- tell me the similarities to Punk\Backlund so I can yell "IRRELEVANT!".

Big Show to Andre makes sense, but Backlund to Punk doesn't? I wasn't even comparing Punk to Backlund, but it makes as much sense as Big Show to Andre does. Maybe more, because Backlund had a much better run than Punk has. At least Backlund got to main-event shows when he was the champion.

For shits and giggles, can you tell me why they are so different? I pointed out quite a few similarities, but all I hear from you is "No they are not".

Umm...tables and chairs? Pretty certain I covered that earlier in the thread.

Shows he is booked to win ladder matches, actually.

Against Andre? Nope.

Exactly, that's been my point. That's why I'm critiquing both Andre's and Punk's attributes and comparing them objectively to determine Punk would win this match.

But you haven't been, that's the point. Strewn around the midsts of your really bad jokes which nobody finds humorous, you've made more objective analysis in this post than probably any other in this thread.

But dont ask for their money back if they lose.

You CAN'T ask for your money back if they lose, that's the stupidest argument you've made yet. If I go see a movie, I don't get to ask for my money back. But you can bet I don't go back the next time if I don't like the movie.

That's a silly argument, and even you know that.

Jobber means you lose alot. C'mon you know that.

No, it doesn't. Losing and jobbing are not the same thing. I DO know that.

Jericho had his day in the sun, but he rode that 'Undisputed' title thing into the ground. Hell, he had alot of help at that PPV but gave no credit to them. Kinda selfish dont you think. Now he is back, again. Over the past few years, he made a living off of losing matches. He loses alot.

First, Jericho is not a major draw and second, Jericho has already cemented his place as one of the best in today's WWE. Big difference between that and this tournament.

Ya but you reference a formula they use in RL and structure it to be similar. By your words\formula, 2 shows should mean twice the wins.

Are you incapable of understanding anything about pro wrestling?

So to further a storyline Cena (huge draw) lost to Punk (smaller draw). Could very well be the case in this here tournament now dont'cha think?

No, because in this tournament, you need to continuously building the next card with your biggest draws.

I've explained this at least three times now. If you don't understand it, that reflects poorly on your intelligence.

Yeah, but they do lose. Means that Andre could lose too.

But not likely.

Your formula says Santino is, yet you contradict yourself by saying he is not.

My "formula" doesn't say that at all. My formula never says guys who win are draws, it said guys who draw win. They are not the same thing.

Unless they are in Chicago or any number of towns where people could give two shits about Cena.

No, even there. Because while fans may show up to boo him, they are still more willing to pay to see him.

You are confusing crowd reaction with drawing. Understandable, it's a common IWC misconception.

How bout that?

How about what? The fact you don't understand the difference between crowd reaction and drawing?

People have spoken. We want Punk. Draw has been maximized.

You're not even trying to be rational anymore. When I'm talking about maximizing the draw for the next round, I'm not talking about a wrestling forum draw, I'm speaking as if this was real life, and we're deciding who to move to the next round.

It's one thing to be stupid because you don't know better, it's something entirely different to intentionally be stupid. Don't be intentionally stupid.

So by your goal\formula I can save you time and a headache. Ask Vince for his financial statements and just pick the 2 guys who made him the most money to 'fight' in the finals.

That's how it would work in real life.

But win they do, nonetheless. Here, there, everywhere.

Who cares? The fact you see Punk as the underdog shows you know Andre is better.

FACT (as you like to say)

Your 'inferior' winner in the 4th round of the WZ tournament - CM Punk.

So now you agree Punk if inferior, which means you have lost the argument. It also shows your vote was not based off who was the greater wrestler, but rather off your own personal fandom.

At this point, it's safe to say you've lost the debate.

 

[stblink]

I voted for CM Punk to win this match.

Since these two wrestlers have never fought each other and the stipulation makes for a more competitive match, I voted for CM Punk because he's been in more TLC match's than Andre

 

[D-Man]

Very arguably. Owen Hart was pretty dangerous. He nearly ended Stone Cold's career. Chris Benoit was pretty dangerous too. Just sayin'. It's arguable.

The reality versus kayfabe argument? Wow, you're dumber than you look. Actually, it's about equal.

In an era where they did way less shows and he was moved around from city to city because people kept getting tired of him.

Do you know anything about the first Golden Age of pro-wrestling? They moved him around because he was so popular that everyone in the nation needed to see him dominate and there was no syndicated television back then, you dumb ass.

Oh me oh my! Yes, let us not forget those epic battles against such legends as Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Killer Khan. Come on, just because they were similar size and stature does not mean they weren't shithouse.

Oh, come on... That's like me telling you not to believe the hype on CM Punk because he spent 3/4 of his career in the indies, wrestling nobodies and spent the first half of his career in WWE wrestling a bunch of Santino Marella types. Andre, as well as Punk, had more matches against stronger opponents. The only difference is that Punk's never faced a man like Andre. And if you're honestly going to compare the Big Show to Andre then you really know jack shit about wrestling.

Similar size don't mean jack, son.

This, coming from the guy who just compared Big Show to Andre. Man, you're such a moron that you just buried yourself. Keep going, though... it's making my argument stronger!

Try stating that CM Punk has beaten the Big Show and because he was similar size and stature as Andre, he win. You'll get your scrotum ripped clean off.

Wait... huh?

Do us all a favor and come back when you can form sentences that actually make sense.

I already made like 6 posts, if you didn't read them, that's your fault.

Yeah, I read them. I also read 75% of the thread shitting on you for them. I guess it's up to 78% now. Nice job.

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

There is no way, absolutely no way Punk should win this match. I'm actually kind of astounded that he's leading in voting right now.

As great as Punk is, Andre is just to over powering. Anyway that you cut it, Andre is the better of the two. Punk's quickness may help him for a bit, but there's no way its going to win him the match. The only way, is by luring Andre outside the arena and then running back in as quickly as he could and climbing the ladder. Andre dumb enough to follow him.

Andre in his prime at the beginning of his run with WWWF would not lose to Punk. Why do I say? Because he didn't lose! In his first ten years he lost a total of 3 matches. Explain to me, how Andre in his prime is suppose to lose to Punk? As much as I love Punk, he should not win this match.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Do you know anything about the first Golden Age of pro-wrestling? They moved him around because he was so popular that everyone in the nation needed to see him dominate and there was no syndicated television back then, you dumb ass.

Roussimoff next moved to Montreal, Canada, where he became an immediate success, regularly selling out the Montreal Forum.[14] However, promoters eventually ran out of plausible opponents for him and, as the novelty of his size wore off, the gate receipts dwindled.[12]

To enhance his size, McMahon discouraged Roussimoff from performing maneuvers such as dropkicks. He also began billing Roussimoff as "André the Giant" and set up a travel-intensive schedule, loaning him to wrestling associations around the world,[10][16][17] to keep him from becoming over-exposed in any area.[12]

McMahon Sr. was actually smart because he could see Andre was a novelty at his core and the only way to keep him interesting was in short bursts.

If Andre actually came into the WWE today, how long would he last undefeated? A year? Less? Monsters are made to be knocked down. He would be chewed up and fed to Cena today. Hence why as soon as he came into the WWF and stopped bouncing around the territories, Hogan rolled over him. Then Warrior did.

Andre benefited grossly from the factors of his time, obviously.

Oh, come on... That's like me telling you not to believe the hype on CM Punk because he spent 3/4 of his career in the indies, wrestling nobodies and spent the first half of his career in WWE wrestling a bunch of Santino Marella types. Andre, as well as Punk, had more matches against stronger opponents. The only difference is that Punk's never faced a man like Andre. And if you're honestly going to compare the Big Show to Andre then you really know jack shit about wrestling.

Except I didn't compare Show to Andre...

This, coming from the guy who just compared Big Show to Andre. Man,you're such a moron that you just buried yourself. Keep going, though... it's making my argument stronger!

Again....where did I compare Andre to Show?

I simply claimed most people who did in this thread are getting their scrotum figuratively ripped off.

Wait... huh?

Do us all a favor and come back when you can form sentences that actually make sense.

Do us all a favour and actually post an argument you fucking scrub.

Yeah, I read them. I also read 75% of the thread shitting on you for them. I guess it's up to 78% now. Nice job.

I bent over KB and Sly in arguments, just like I'm doing to you now.

 

[The Brain]

Roussimoff next moved to Montreal, Canada, where he became an immediate success, regularly selling out the Montreal Forum.[14] However, promoters eventually ran out of plausible opponents for him and, as the novelty of his size wore off, the gate receipts dwindled.[12]

Did you read that bold part? Promoters did not have anyone who could beat Andre. Not only that, they didn't have anyone who people would even think stood a chance against Andre. This is part of your argument for Punk beating Andre?

To enhance his size, McMahon discouraged Roussimoff from performing maneuvers such as dropkicks. He also began billing Roussimoff as "André the Giant" and set up a travel-intensive schedule, loaning him to wrestling associations around the world,[10][16][17] to keep him from becoming over-exposed in any area.[12]

McMahon Sr. was actually smart because he could see Andre was a novelty at his core and the only way to keep him interesting was in short bursts.

And here we are in this blockbuster tournament where Andre is making one his rare short burst apperances and you think he's going to lose in the fourth round to a guy like Punk?

If Andre actually came into the WWE today, how long would he last undefeated? A year? Less? Monsters are made to be knocked down. He would be chewed up and fed to Cena today. Hence why as soon as he came into the WWF and stopped bouncing around the territories, Hogan rolled over him. Then Warrior did.

If Punk was around in the 70s/early 80s he would have been just another guy that Andre beat in five minutes. In fact he would have been just one of three opponents that Andre beat in five minutes in the same match.

Hogan and Warrior got wins over Andre because they were clearly the superstars of the future. Andre's career was coming to an end so he put the new guys over. Not exactly a new concept in wrestling.

Andre benefited grossly from the factors of his time, obviously.

As Punk does now with entrance music, video packages, world wide televison shows and pay per views, merchandising, and the internet. Andre became one of the most popular wrestlers without those advantages.

I bent over KB and Sly in arguments, just like I'm doing to you now.

This, just like Punk beating Andre, is just some sort of wild fantasy.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Did you read that bold part? Promoters did not have anyone who could beat Andre. Not only that, they didn't have anyone who people would even think stood a chance against Andre. This is part of your argument for Punk beating Andre?

And you missed the part where they said they were taking less and less at the gate each night. Hence his diminished value over time. Promoters didn't have anyone that was plausible for Andre to beat. This meant they didn't want to devalue their own champions in order to keep Andre undefeated.

I repeat. If anyone had kept Andre around long enough, he would have been beaten. He just got the hell out of town before anyone could.

And here we are in this blockbuster tournament where Andre is making one his rare short burst apperances and you think he's going to lose in the fourth round to a guy like Punk?

This match takes place in WCW, after the territory system was dying. Monsters got beaten all the time here. Look at Goldberg, The Giant, Juventud Guerrera.

See? My arguments can be as ridiculous as yours.

If Punk was around in the 70s/early 80s he would have been just another guy that Andre beat in five minutes. In fact he would have been just one of three opponents that Andre beat in five minutes in the same match.

Because he wrestlers a different style in a different era. You could say the same thing about Steve Austin when he was getting his ass kicked in WCW. Just because he would be squashed doesn't mean he isn't better.

Hogan got beat by Andre early in his career. Who turned out better?

Hogan and Warrior got wins over Andre because they were clearly the superstars of the future. Andre's career was coming to an end so he put the new guys over. Not exactly a new concept in wrestling.

And here we are in a tournament where CM Punk is a star of the future. Time to put him over Andre

^^ SEE? THATS HOW RIDICULOUS YOUR EARLIER POST SOUNDED.

As Punk does now with entrance music, video packages, world wide televison shows and pay per views, merchandising, and the internet. Andre became one of the most popular wrestlers without those advantages

He had the advantage of word of mouth and not everyone being able to see him, spreading his legend. Andre would do worse in todays climate, simply because people would get tired of his schtick.

This, just like Punk beating Andre, is just some sort of wild fantasy.

Hence why Sly coyly went on to pick on someone a little bit easier like nightmare instead of posing any argument with me, and KB just stopped visiting the thread altogether after he couldn't produce any more points.

Thanks for sticking around Brain, loooove youuuuu. <3

 

[The Brain]

And you missed the part where they said they were taking less and less at the gate each night. Hence his diminished value over time. Promoters didn't have anyone that was plausible for Andre to beat. This meant they didn't want to devalue their own champions in order to keep Andre undefeated.

You are twisting that around to try and support your argument. You know damn well that was not meant to say that promoters didn't have anyone that was plausible for Andre to beat. It was obviously the other way around. Nice try on trying to spin it in your favor though.

This match takes place in WCW, after the territory system was dying. Monsters got beaten all the time here. Look at Goldberg, The Giant, Juventud Guerrera.

See? My arguments can be as ridiculous as yours.

One of the biggest stars in wrestling history beating someone who hasn't yet peaked in the middle rounds of a star studed tournament to crown the best of all time is a ridiculous argument? I don't see why.

Because he wrestlers a different style in a different era. You could say the same thing about Steve Austin when he was getting his ass kicked in WCW. Just because he would be squashed doesn't mean he isn't better.

So why is it ok to give Punk a pass for wrestling a different style in a different era when imagining him in Andre's time but you use it against Andre when imagining him in Punk's time?

Hogan got beat by Andre early in his career. Who turned out better?

Good question. Too bad this match won't take place in the tournament. I wonder if Hulk Hogan vs. CM Punk would have drawn 93,000 and revolutionized the wrestling supercard.

And here we are in a tournament where CM Punk is a star of the future. Time to put him over Andre

^^ SEE? THATS HOW RIDICULOUS YOUR EARLIER POST SOUNDED.

Except in this tournament Andre isn't past his prime so he would not be putting over an inferior wrestler.

He had the advantage of word of mouth and not everyone being able to see him, spreading his legend. Andre would do worse in todays climate, simply because people would get tired of his schtick.

Pretty impressive that his legend spread by only word of mouth. I wonder how popular Punk would be if not for national tv and the internet. I bet his legend wouldn't get very far by word of mouth.

Hence why Sly coyly went on to pick on someone a little bit easier like nightmare instead of posing any argument with me, and KB just stopped visiting the thread altogether after he couldn't produce any more points.

Thanks for sticking around Brain, loooove youuuuu. <3

 

[justinsayne]

Nobody beat Andre when he was in his prime, nobody. Punk is in his prime & still gets beat on a rather routine basis. C'mon people it's doesn't take a brain surgeon to see who would win this match. This should be fairly obvious, Andre wins Punk doesn't stand a chance. You've all seen Avengers, the Hulk/Loki scene, yeah that's about how this match would go. Puny Punk....

 

[Slyfox696]

Hence why Sly coyly went on to pick on someone a little bit easier like nightmare instead of posing any argument with me

Actually, when I saw you posted a video from ROH against someone whose name I barely recognize and whose face I wouldn't recognize from long before Punk's prime to try and further your point that winning a grand total of THREE matches gives Punk an unbeatable advantage, I just figured your post was so stupid I didn't even need to reply further. The fact you actually tried to make that argument shows that even you know how weak your case really is.

Amusing how you confused your stupidity and lack of rational debating ability with me not wanting to debate with you.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Actually, when I saw you posted a video from ROH against someone whose name I barely recognize and whose face I wouldn't recognize from long before Punk's prime to try and further your point that winning a grand total of THREE matches gives Punk an unbeatable advantage, I just figured your post was so stupid I didn't even need to reply further. The fact you actually tried to make that argument shows that even you know how weak your case really is.

Amusing how you confused your stupidity and lack of rational debating ability with me not wanting to debate with you.

Once again, you point out that winning three matches doesn't win the match for Punk. And once again you point out no evidence for Andre winning. It's what you've been doing for this entire thread. Yousit and scream that voters for CM Punk don't have enough evidence, quoting and out quoting people and detracting from their arguments. This doesn't mean you win, it means you don't have anything and you're feebly trying to detract from the winning argument.

The only actual evidence you posted was a video of a match (against Kamala of all fucking people) where you showed people it wasnt totally physically impossible for Andre to climb to the top rope. Startling stuff. Your entire argument was based on shutting mine down, and when you couldn't anymore, you have up. And went to pick on other people you could beat.


And seriously? You're dogging ROH? Who gives a fuck? A win is a win in a wrestling company. You can go ahead and invalidate all of Andre's territory wins too while you're at it. Now he's just an old, immobile giant in the WWF.


But of course, you keep telling yourself you're SO MUCH SMARTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

 

[Slyfox696]

Once again, you point out that winning three matches doesn't win the match for Punk. And once again you point out no evidence for Andre winning. It's what you've been doing for this entire thread.

If you truly believe this, then your reading comprehension is even worse than I originally thought. I've given MANY different reasons why Andre should win this match. If you lack the capacity to understand them, that's a "you" problem.

The only actual evidence you posted was a video of a match (against Kamala of all fucking people) where you showed people it wasnt totally physically impossible for Andre to climb to the top rope. Startling stuff. Your entire argument was based on shutting mine down, and when you couldn't anymore, you have up.

I also noted his incredible size and strength, correlated that to the fact Andre now gets to use weapons, noted how CM Punk spends far more time in matches getting his ass kicked than hurting people, and made the connection that Andre would absolutely destroy CM Punk. Then, using the video as supporting evidence that Andre can climb, I used the fact that even most of the people voting against Andre agree he can climb a ladder to show that there is absolutely no reason to vote against Andre.

And that doesn't take into account his great win/loss record, his massive drawing appeal, his mainstream appeal which even today, nearly 20 years after his death, is still greater than CM Punk's, and the fact Andre contributed more to evolving the business than CM Punk ever will.

With the exception of the "evolving business" line, everything else I just said has been said at least once, usually more, throughout the thread. Again, if you lack the mental capacity to comprehend what I said, that's a "you" problem.

And went to pick on other people you could beat.

I completely whipped your ass in this thread. You resorted to posting ROH videos against Chris Hero from long before Punk reached his prime, as big of a sign of desperation as has existed in this thread. I think that's proof positive of how soundly you were defeated.

And seriously? You're dogging ROH? Who gives a fuck?

Exactly what I was thinking. Who gives a fuck about ROH? They're a two bit promotion who has done nothing but walk the tightrope of bankruptcy since they opened. Why in the fuck you think ROH is relevant in a discussion of Andre and Punk in their primes would normally boggle my mind, but given the complete lack of intelligence and rational thought you've displayed in this thread, it doesn't really surprise me.

 

[Benson]

If you truly believe this, then your reading comprehension is even worse than I originally thought. I've given MANY different reasons why Andre should win this match. If you lack the capacity to understand them, that's a "you" problem.

Basically what you've been saying though is that Andre should win because he's bigger and stronger. And that Andre has beaten guys Punk's size before and decimated them. But when we point out the discrepancies in the sie argument when using Big Show as a comparison to Andre, you scream out "Big Show is not Andre!". Well, none of those guys that Andre has beaten were CM Punk. They don't wrestle his style, they don't have his experience in TLC matches and they don't have his knowledge of multiple styles. It's the same damn thing. You shouldn't compare Andre to Big Show or Khali, and you shouldn't compare any of those guys that Andre dominated to Punk.

I also noted his incredible size and strength, correlated that to the fact Andre now gets to use weapons,

They both do. And Andre's size advantage is neutered by his lack of speed.

noted how CM Punk spends far more time in matches getting his ass kicked than hurting people,

Most faces do in today's WWE. They also execute comebacks better than the heels and get the W's.

and made the connection that Andre would absolutely destroy CM Punk

2+2=5, now?

Then, using the video as supporting evidence that Andre can climb, I used the fact that even most of the people voting against Andre agree he can climb a ladder to show that there is absolutely no reason to vote against Andre

You can't POSSIBLY be trying to state that climbing a sturdy 3 foot turnbuckle is the same as climbing a wobbly 7 foot ladder. Stop, dude. Just stop.

And that doesn't take into account his great win/loss record,

Was he wrestling main event calibre wrestlers in the promotion or was he facing 5 foot nothing jobbers?

his massive drawing appeal,

To be fair, Punk didn't have the whole circus freak thing to get people to come see him. He had to do it on mic skills and putting on great matches week in and week out.

his mainstream appeal which even today, nearly 20 years after his death, is still greater than CM Punk's,

If you mean currently, then you're dead fucking wrong. I'm not denying that he's still very well known, nor am I denying ANY of his contributions to wrestling whatsoever, and Punk is very mainstream right now, especially for a guy who tries to stay as underground as he possibly can.

 

[Slyfox696]

Basically what you've been saying though is that Andre should win because he's bigger and stronger. And that Andre has beaten guys Punk's size before and decimated them. But when we point out the discrepancies in the sie argument when using Big Show as a comparison to Andre, you scream out "Big Show is not Andre!". Well, none of those guys that Andre has beaten were CM Punk. They don't wrestle his style, they don't have his experience in TLC matches and they don't have his knowledge of multiple styles. It's the same damn thing. You shouldn't compare Andre to Big Show or Khali, and you shouldn't compare any of those guys that Andre dominated to Punk.

I haven't compared anyone to Punk, unless a comparison to Andre was made first.

Haven't you learned yet you're easily the worst of the posters supporting Punk? And given my debates with MRC and nightmare, that's quite impressive.

They both do.

Yes, but only one of them is strong enough to overturn a car with people in it. Are you really going to compare the power of Andre to the power of Punk? Again, your best contribution to this thread is to say nothing.

And Andre's size advantage is neutered by his lack of speed.

Considering Punk is one of the least athletically inclined guys to work the WWE main-event, I beg to differ.

Most faces do in today's WWE.

But Andre didn't.

They also execute comebacks better than the heels and get the W's.

But Andre isn't a heel, so your comment is irrelevant.

2+2=5, now?

No, Andre being big and powerful + CM Punk regularly taking an ass kicking = Andre victory

You can't POSSIBLY be trying to state that climbing a sturdy 3 foot turnbuckle is the same as climbing a wobbly 7 foot ladder. Stop, dude. Just stop.

What's so funny is that a STEEL ladder is EASILY more stable than climbing to the top ROPE. Shelton Benjamin literally ran up a ladder, when was the last time you saw someone run across a ring rope?

Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you just sounded.

Was he wrestling main event calibre wrestlers in the promotion or was he facing 5 foot nothing jobbers?

He did it all. He beat main-event caliber wrestlers and scores of midgets at one time. That's how great Andre was.

It's obvious you don't know anything about Andre's history and are basically relying on other people's arguments. Again, the best thing you could do is not post at all.

To be fair, Punk didn't have the whole circus freak thing to get people to come see him. He had to do it on mic skills and putting on great matches week in and week out.

To be fair, Punk gets to work in front of a worldwide audience every week, and gets 10-20 minutes to put himself over in promos.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your blind biases.

If you mean currently, then you're dead fucking wrong.

No I'm not.

Ask 100 random people on the street if they know who Andre the Giant is, or if they've heard of him. Then ask if they've heard of CM Punk. A whole hell of a lot more people will know Andre than Punk.

I'm not denying that he's still very well known, nor am I denying ANY of his contributions to wrestling whatsoever, and Punk is very mainstream right now, especially for a guy who tries to stay as underground as he possibly can.

What? Do you know what you were trying to say there, because it sure as hell didn't make sense to me. You're trying to say I'm wrong about Andre being more well-known, and then talk about how well known Andre is while saying Punk is trying to stay underground.

I'll say it again, and probably for the last time, as I've read your numerous posts in this thread and they are easily some of the worst posts in this tournament...do yourself a favor, and don't post anymore in this thread. And please, whichever wrestlers I choose to support in future rounds, do not post in favor of them.

 

[nightmare]

While I did enjoy that lovely bit of red rep you left for me Slyfox, its ok- because I know it was out of frustration. Red is the color of love and anger. So I love you too and hate that your circular misdirection didnt work out for you big guy. But since you like Smilies so much....


As much as I really do want to read your word forts left since I last was here, I dont see the need. I would, however like to direct you to the poll above.


That says - CM Punk beats Andre The Giant in a TLC match in the 4th round of the WZT.

CM Punk, the man who overcomes the odds. A man that wins titles by beating wrestlers who are considered superhuman. A quicker, 'puny human' booked to win ladder matches of all types (regardless if the chairs\tables are under\in\around the ring... cuz its still a f'n ladder match), who beats guys that are huge draws for their company.


Fact. CM Punk. Winner. MRC, Coco, Davi, Benson, myself and others have been trying to tell you the whole f'n thread.


On behalf of all our Punk supporters- Go fuck yourself San Diego

I thought I would restate this because somehow it was deleted for 'spam' and I received a warning from the leader of Camp Andre. Even though it points out facts regarding why Punk would\did win this so it is quite relevant. I gave my opinion relevant to thread subject and backed up my opinion with the fact Punk won. I even said why I feel the way I do about his win and allowed others to debate my opinion. Under the rules, I do beleive this is acceptable, que no?

CM Punk regularly taking an ass kicking

You forgot to mention he tends to win after taking a beating.

What's so funny is that a STEEL ladder is EASILY more stable than climbing to the top ROPE. Shelton Benjamin literally ran up a ladder, when was the last time you saw someone run across a ring rope?

He said turnbuckle not ring rope. Difference. Fact. The ladders wobble and such with a normal man climbing let alone a Giant. It has merit. Regardless it has been stated that he would have no issue climbing due to ladder strength.

He did it all. He beat main-event caliber wrestlers and scores of midgets at one time. That's how great Andre was.

You know who has also beat main-event caliber wrestlers and scores of mid-card guys at one time in MITB? CM Punk. OOOOOHHHH ANDRE BEAT MIDGETS. That doesnt help your claim. Normal size people beat midgets too.

Ask 100 random people on the street if they know who Andre the Giant is, or if they've heard of him. Then ask if they've heard of CM Punk. A whole hell of a lot more people will know Andre than Punk.

Should we ask people now, or hop in the Delorean and ask when Andre was alive? Id reckon now, more people know who CM Punk is.




BTW would still like to hear how you think that ladder\TLC\MITB is so different besides the #of guys fighting at the same time. Cuz all have had multiple competitors at some point.


And never got a clear answer on why Punk was booked to beat a superhuman ratings machine like Cena who draws huge, yet wouldnt do the same against Andre? In RL. Not the RL fantasy tournament based on RL that we propose fantasy matches for yet take account RL criteria.

 

[Slyfox696]

I thought I would restate this because somehow it was deleted for 'spam' and I received a warning from the leader of Camp Andre. Even though it points out facts regarding why Punk would\did win this so it is quite relevant. I gave my opinion relevant to thread subject and backed up my opinion with the fact Punk won. I even said why I feel the way I do about his win and allowed others to debate my opinion. Under the rules, I do beleive this is acceptable, que no?

No, it was spam. If you wish to contest the Warning, you are welcome to do so in a PM to me. Whining about it on the open forums will not end well for you.

You forgot to mention he tends to win after taking a beating.

Irrelevant due to the fact Andre always tends to win. Punk's comeback is negated by the fact Andre wins all the time. Andre still kicks ass, and Punk still takes an ass kicking.

He said turnbuckle not ring rope. Difference.

The turnbuckle is where the ring ropes connect to a pole. You've seen the inside of a turnbuckle, it's nothing more than ring rope being directed into the shape of a square.

So, no, it's not a difference. Here's a good shot of an exposed turnbuckle, right at the very beginning of the video.

The ladders wobble and such with a normal man climbing let alone a Giant. It has merit.

No, it doesn't. A steel ladder is easily more stable than a rope. Anyone arguing otherwise is being stupid.

Regardless it has been stated that he would have no issue climbing due to ladder strength.

Exactly.

You know who has also beat main-event caliber wrestlers and scores of mid-card guys at one time in MITB? CM Punk. OOOOOHHHH ANDRE BEAT MIDGETS. That doesnt help your claim. Normal size people beat midgets too.

Do you read anything before you post, or do you just completely ignore the context of a reply? I wasn't the one who brought up midgets. Go back, read a little bit, and then understand why your comment is ridiculous.

Should we ask people now, or hop in the Delorean and ask when Andre was alive? Id reckon now, more people know who CM Punk is.

Ask tomorrow if you want. I'm not talking wrestling fans, I'm talking normal, everyday people. More people will know the name Andre the Giant than they will CM Punk. Even people who know nothing about pro wrestling will know the names Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant.

Andre the Giant was a far bigger name in popular culture than Punk can realistically hope to ever be. I imagine if you ask Punk, he'll tell you the same thing if he's being truthful.

BTW would still like to hear how you think that ladder\TLC\MITB is so different besides the #of guys fighting at the same time.

BTW, I already mentioned it twice. Try reading for a change. I cannot count how many times now you've said things that I've already answered/replied to.

And never got a clear answer on why Punk was booked to beat a superhuman ratings machine like Cena who draws huge, yet wouldnt do the same against Andre? In RL.

Yes you did. You may not have been able to comprehend the argument, due to your obvious lack of reading comprehension, but I wrote a very detailed explanation on the difference between today's WWE and how this tournament is run.

As I've said to you multiple times in this post now...go read.

 

[Benson]

I haven't compared anyone to Punk, unless a comparison to Andre was made first.

Haven't you learned yet you're easily the worst of the posters supporting Punk? And given my debates with MRC and nightmare, that's quite impressive.

Wow. I'm hurt. Actually, no, I'm not because I don't think you're opinion is the end all-be all, and I've seen your type before. I've had more encouragement for my posts in this thread than discouragement by far, so once again, you're wrong. You're not scaring anybody, you're not intimidating anybody, you're not hurting anybody and you're not as big and bad as you think you are.

First thing they teach you in law school or when you try out for a debate team. Argue the facts. If you have no facts, argue morals. If you don't have a strong moral argument, do as much as you possibly can to discredit the people presenting the opposing opinions. Make an argument without resorting to your usual tactics and I'm sure you'll accomplish your goal of impressing everyone and gaining respect.

Yes, but only one of them is strong enough to overturn a car with people in it. Are you really going to compare the power of Andre to the power of Punk? Again, your best contribution to this thread is to say nothing.

I never did compare the power of Andre and Punk. I have no idea where you saw that. Is YOU'RE reading comprehension really that bad? I stated that Andre's size is neutered by his lack of speed and Punk's ability to hit and run. I'm not saying it's completely balanced, but it's equalized enough to allow Punk's experience in this match to come into play.

Considering Punk is one of the least athletically inclined guys to work the WWE main-event, I beg to differ.

He's still faster and in better shape than Andre was. Bear in mind, I'm not stating that Andre was in horrible shape during his prime, just that Punk is certainly in better shape. I thought I'd better spell that out for you.

But Andre didn't.

Because booking styles have changed in the past 40 years? CM Punk is a booked as a baby face in today's WWE, which means absorb a lot of punishment and come back for the W.

What's so funny is that a STEEL ladder is EASILY more stable than climbing to the top ROPE. Shelton Benjamin literally ran up a ladder, when was the last time you saw someone run across a ring rope?

7 Feet is a far cry from 3 feet, to a man with a fear of heights? Trust me, I have a fear of heights and climb to the top turnbuckle, but am scared to fucking death of going up past the third rung of a ladder. And the fact of the matter that Andre would undoubtedly be scared of getting knocked off the ladder, especially with it being so top heavy as he nears the top.

He did it all. He beat main-event caliber wrestlers and scores of midgets at one time. That's how great Andre was.

Punk never really had the luxury of facing midgets to boost his "undefeated" streak. Regardless of how many of them there were. Poor Punk has to face those main even calibre wrestlers every week. I suppose if he went undefeated facing Darren Young, Michael McGillicuddy and occasionally facing a main eventer once every six months, he'd be looked upon more favorably.

To be fair, Punk gets to work in front of a worldwide audience every week, and gets 10-20 minutes to put himself over in promos.

Yet he still got himself over as a popular wrestler, when he was working his ass off in a rink dink promotion like ROH, without that national exposure. Yet he still had people talking. And not because of his size, but SOLELY because of his talent.

Ask 100 random people on the street if they know who Andre the Giant is, or if they've heard of him. Then ask if they've heard of CM Punk. A whole hell of a lot more people will know Andre than Punk.

Depends on what the demographic of the people are. I get that it's random but if the majority of them are young, the votes will go to Punk. If the majority of female, I'd imagine a lot would go to Punk, just solely based off the fact that they may have a family member that watches wrestling or have seen CM Punk T-shirts somewhere.

What? Do you know what you were trying to say there, because it sure as hell didn't make sense to me. You're trying to say I'm wrong about Andre being more well-known, and then talk about how well known Andre is while saying Punk is trying to stay underground

.

Once again, YOUR reading comprehension sucks. I never said "more" well known. I said that I don't deny that Andre is still very well known, but not mores than Punk is currently. LEarn to fucking read. And this part is very clear: Punk is very mainstream, despite his best attempts to remain underground. What is so hard to understand about that?

I'll say it again, and probably for the last time, as I've read your numerous posts in this thread and they are easily some of the worst posts in this tournament.

Ha. Maybe I should avoid the points and distract the reader by focusing on petty insults and use diversion tactics to take away from the many valid points being made and make myself seem big and scary over the internet.

do yourself a favor, and don't post anymore in this thread.

I may not, seeing as how there is nothing left to prove, what with people agreeing with the Pro-Punk argument and you failing miserably to convince anyone that your "logic" is infallible.

 

[nightmare]

The turnbuckle is where the ring ropes connect to a pole. You've seen the inside of a turnbuckle, it's nothing more than ring rope being directed into the shape of a square.

Yeah and where the ropes meet is called a turnbuckle. I know. I also know that standing at the point of a corner where cables are connected is more stable than a line of cable. Less give and all by being reinforced. Engineering fact.

No, it doesn't. A steel ladder is easily more stable than a rope. Anyone arguing otherwise is being stupid.

Its a cable, and yes a ladder is more stable than a cable. Yet when weight is upon said ladder it can be unstable or shaky because of the man climbing usually causes it to. Have you ever been on a ladder and felt it wobble? Everyone has.

Ask tomorrow if you want. I'm not talking wrestling fans, I'm talking normal, everyday people. More people will know the name Andre the Giant than they will CM Punk. Even people who know nothing about pro wrestling will know the names Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant.

Way to change what you meant when a reply discredits your statement. I have grown fond of this throughout the tournament.

BTW, I already mentioned it twice. Try reading for a change. I cannot count how many times now you've said things that I've already answered/replied to.

Spelled different, other than that..... The similarities are quite astounding as I have pointed out. You climb a ladder to win. You must grab pre-determined object above the ring. Features wrestlers- sometimes multiple wrestlers at the same time. Weapons such as chairs and tables are legal regardless where they are at the start of said match. Takes place in a ring in front of people. Pretty much describes it to a T. Really cant find too much that differs, can you?

Yes you did. You may not have been able to comprehend the argument, due to your obvious lack of reading comprehension, but I wrote a very detailed explanation on the difference between today's WWE and how this tournament is run.

Yea something about territories and what not. Us stupid folks with no reading comprehenshion cant be bothered with such things. We have to get sleep because of work in the morning.




Goodnight WZ. Bask in the glory of CM Punk as your winner, because he slays Giants with superhuman strength and vast drawing power in TLC matches and guys named Cena for championships. He may\may not have used a chair shot to the leg, but the end result was a check in the win column.


CM Punk- Best in the World.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I'm going to filter out all the nonsense and basically get to the crux of your argument. Then, for about the 5th time in this thread, I'm going to refute each one of your points.

I don't know how many times I'll have to do this before you get it in your head that you've lost, but why not.

I also noted his incredible size and strength

CM Punk has wrestled and put down monsters before.

"OH MY GOD BUT ANDRE IS SO MUCH STRONGER THAN EVERYONE ELSE" I hear you per-pubescent voice scream.

So what? Big Show has flipped cars too. There's a limit to how much strength is actually going to help.

The thing about Andre is he's always been strong, but he's never been able to convert the strength or size into meaningful wins. We'll get to that later.

Andre now gets to use weapons

CM Punk gets to use weapons too. Like 14 people have told you that.

I noted how CM Punk spends far more time in matches getting his ass kicked than hurting people and made the connection that Andre would absolutely destroy CM Punk.

More so than Andre when he actually faced big name opponents? Andre never really beat anyone on CM Punk level, did he now Sly?

I asked KB who he had beaten of merit during his run in the WWF. The best he could come up with was Bam Bam Bigelow. Did you have someone better in mind? Odds are, they probably aren't a multi-time World Champion. See, I asked you this earlier in the thread, and you ducked the question.

Then, using the video as supporting evidence that Andre can climb

Congratulations, Andre can do what most toddlers can do.

And that doesn't take into account his great win/loss record

Against no name and jobbers in territories.

his massive drawing appeal,

When he was moved from city to city so people wouldn't get tired of his shit.

his mainstream appeal which even today, nearly 20 years after his death, is still greater than CM Punk's

I suppose CM Punk should apologize for wanting to wrestle instead of going to star in The Princess Bride.

and the fact Andre contributed more to evolving the business than CM Punk ever will.

Right time, right place, right freakish medical disorder.

With the exception of the "evolving business" line, everything else I just said has been said at least once, usually more, throughout the thread. Again, if you lack the mental capacity to comprehend what I said, that's a "you" problem.

You still haven't answered the question which I asked you days ago about who Andre has beaten that has come close to the caliber of CM Punk. But feel free to duck me again.

I completely whipped your ass in this thread.

You did nothing of the sort.

You resorted to posting ROH videos against Chris Hero from long before Punk reached his prime

Which makes it scary to think what Punk would do in this match up DURING his prime...

as big of a sign of desperation as has existed in this thread. I think that's proof positive of how soundly you were defeated.

No offense, but Chris Hero shits all over Kamala, and at least my evidence was the right kind of stipulation.

Exactly what I was thinking. Who gives a fuck about ROH? They're a two bit promotion who has done nothing but walk the tightrope of bankruptcy since they opened. Why in the fuck you think ROH is relevant in a discussion of Andre and Punk in their primes would normally boggle my mind, but given the complete lack of intelligence and rational thought you've displayed in this thread, it doesn't really surprise me.

Except, you boasted Andre's undefeated 15 year reign, which was pretty much him going from territory to territory, being booked over complete scrubs. And yet you give more credence to a small territory back then to ROH now. That doesn't make sense. CM Punk beat another wrestler in a TLC match. It seems like you're just having a hissy fit because you don't like ROH. Either we invalidate Andre's huge streak because it wasn't on a stage that mattered, or CM Punk's career outside of the WWE matters.

Get on my level, brah.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

You are twisting that around to try and support your argument. You know damn well that was not meant to say that promoters didn't have anyone that was plausible for Andre to beat. It was obviously the other way around. Nice try on trying to spin it in your favor though.

I'm not twisting it around at all. Unless you wrote that Andre biography, you don't know what it 'meant' to say at all. I stand by what I said; Umaga was running out of plausible people for him to beat too. You know what they did? They fed him to Cena. The same thing happened when Andre stayed in one place for too long (The WWF)

One of the biggest stars in wrestling history beating someone who hasn't yet peaked in the middle rounds of a star studed tournament to crown the best of all time is a ridiculous argument? I don't see why.

So you agree he hasn't yet peaked? CM Punk is already good enough to beat Andre in this tournament and he hasn't reached his full potential as a wrestler. Woweee.

So why is it ok to give Punk a pass for wrestling a different style in a different era when imagining him in Andre's time but you use it against Andre when imagining him in Punk's time?

Because the style wrestled today is so much faster and so much higher paced than the style of Andre's time. We KNOW Punk is fast and fit enough to keep up with today's style, but we don't know if Andre is.

You bring Andre in today with the moves he was working then, he would just be another indistinguishable monster.

Good question. Too bad this match won't take place in the tournament. I wonder if Hulk Hogan vs. CM Punk would have drawn 93,000 and revolutionized the wrestling supercard.

I guess we'll never know.

Except in this tournament Andre isn't past his prime so he would not be putting over an inferior wrestler.

Inferior in your eyes. To many, Punk is better.

Pretty impressive that his legend spread by only word of mouth. I wonder how popular Punk would be if not for national tv and the internet. I bet his legend wouldn't get very far by word of mouth.

No idea. I mean lots of people seemed to know about him when he debuted in ECW having never been in the WWE before, just from his past work.

I can imagine the hype around his cult of Straight Edge being sick in the territory days though, as he travelled from town to town shaving the heads of the local youth.

If Andre were wrestling today, I guarantee half this forum would hate him like they do most monsters.

 

[The Brain]

I'm not twisting it around at all. Unless you wrote that Andre biography, you don't know what it 'meant' to say at all. I stand by what I said; Umaga was running out of plausible people for him to beat too. You know what they did? They fed him to Cena. The same thing happened when Andre stayed in one place for too long (The WWF)

I know exactly what it meant to say. It was pretty obvious. You'd have to be stupid not to get it. Don't be insulted. I don't think you're stupid, just a liar. Liar may be a bit harsh but you definitely twisted to attempt to strengthen your argument. There was no need to resort to that if you truly believe Punk is better.

So you agree he hasn't yet peaked? CM Punk is already good enough to beat Andre in this tournament and he hasn't reached his full potential as a wrestler. Woweee.

I do agree Punk hasn't peaked yet. I said that several times. I'm pretty sure I said it in this thread but I know I said it in the Bret thread. I hope Punk is good enough some day for me to consider giving him a win over Andre. We need new big stars. He's just not there yet. I don't know why Punk's fans have such a hard time with that. He is one of the best right now. Isn't that a nice compliment for him? That doesn't mean he should already be considered one of the best of all time. That's like me saying Clayton Kershaw (2011 NL Cy Young Award winner for those who don't know) is already better than Greg Maddux. Kershaw looks great now but I need to see more of him before calling him one of the best ever.

Because the style wrestled today is so much faster and so much higher paced than the style of Andre's time. We KNOW Punk is fast and fit enough to keep up with today's style, but we don't know if Andre is.

And what makes today's style a better style? Why does faster automatically equal better? Speed didn't make Shelton Benjamin and John Morrison very successful. And since when is Punk the Flash anyway. I keep reading about his faster style but I don't recall seeing him work that style. Just because he has a couple moves off the top rope that the IWC loves to splooge over doesn't mean he's fast.

Inferior in your eyes. To many, Punk is better.

Yes, to those who were still sucking milk from their mother's breasts when Andre died and didn't realize wrestling existed before the attitude era.

No idea. I mean lots of people seemed to know about him when he debuted in ECW having never been in the WWE before, just from his past work.

Yeah because of the internet. Pretty sure I covered that. Internet hero wins internet poll. Shocking.

If Andre were wrestling today, I guarantee half this forum would hate him like they do most monsters.

Because if a guy isn't flying out of the ring a few times per match the IWC thinks he's shit. They think Hulk Hogan and John Cena can't wrestle. Not much credibility there.