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

[Slyfox696]

We differ on opinions. Malenko was great. Holly was as well. Must be good or they wouldnt have been hired to train and evaluate talent.

Being a good trainer has nothing to do with being a good pro wrestler. Malenko was a good hand. He was safe in the ring, he worked to make his matches believable and his opponents look good. But he couldn't draw flies to shit. Which means he was not entertaining. Which means he cannot be a great wrestler.

Hardcore Holly was an asshole. Do a little research and you'll see what I mean.

Fans like what they like. Why is appreciating talent make you ignorant? I like guys more for what they do in the ring as opposed to how many shirts they sell.

Because how do you measure which talent entertains the most fans? The ones who draw are the ones who are the most entertaining. The ones who draw are the best. It's that simple.

So how often did he do that?

Because he was a Super Heavyweight, not a Cruiserweight. Do you understand ANYTHING about pro wrestling? Do you understand what psychology is?

Besides that, the fact Andre DID do it shows your statement was false. Which is the point.

Also they do things the promoters\bookers want them to do. Just because you see a wrestler do something doesnt mean he is 100% comfortable doing it.

Nobody made Andre do something he didn't want to do. Nobody. Hogan has said repeatedly that he went into WM 3 worried about whether or not Andre was going to be willing to lay down for him. Because, as Hogan has said, if Andre didn't want to, there was no making him.

I suggest you learn a little more about pro wrestling before you debate with me again.

We are. Andre is strong\tall and Punk uses speed\tenacity to counter that with shots to the leg.

No, "shots to the leg" is a fantasy scenario. You have ZERO proof of that happening in this match. You're suggesting it as a strategy, but that doesn't mean Punk actually tries it or is successful if he does. Thus it is not an analysis of Punk's qualities.

And please tell me about Punk's tenacity. What about Andre's tenacity? I say Andre was more tenacious than Punk was. Andre was also smarter.

Andre is big and Punk is smaller- use what works. Andre good at giving punishment, Punk good at taking it. They will use their strengths to play on the others weakness.

Exactly. Andre gives punishment and Punk takes it.

Andre wins the match.

They both have done what? Win ladder matches or KO someone in one shot? Neither have done both.

They both have KO'd someone in one shot. Although Cena has also won a TLC match, so he has done both. Extreme Rules this year against Lesnar for the KO and Unforgiven 2006 for the TLC.

Ya and you said how slow they climb. You said Punk climbs slow. Punk won despite being a 'slow' climber. What was you point again?

My point was that Punk is a slow climber, you agree Andre would not be too hurt to stand up, so Punk has no chance in this match.

Andre wins.

Never said that.

Yes you did. You said the point of this tournament is to see who would win in a ring, and then argued with me when I told you it wasn't.

Point was if match types, ability to win (etc) dont have so much weight then why structure the tournament in such a way. Why not say- voting based on attendance, mic skill, ratings and tshirt sales because thats what Slyfox likes to base decisions on.

Are you fucking stupid? Like I'm seriously asking. I've never ONCE said you can only use attendance, mic skill, rating and tshirt sales. YOU were the one who said those are not relevant and I'm telling you they are.

I've also made the kayfabe argument and the booking argument. I've used all three to show Andre is more deserving to advance. This is probably the first time I've actually thought you were legitimately stupid, if you truly believe what you just said.

If they all matter why do you dismiss the ones that dont work for you like revelant match history, relevant opponents (etc).

Because those are IRRELEVANT. I'm not dismissing relevant arguments, I'm dismissing irrelevant arguments like two wrestlers who have nothing to do with this match is worthy of being in the argument. I'm dismissing your CONJECTURE on what might happen.

Relevant arguments are qualities the men possess. If you were to say Punk has X number of WWE championships, I wouldn't dismiss that argument. I would COUNTER it by listing Andre's accomplishments, but I wouldn't say that's a pointless statement.

Learn the difference between relevant statements and irrelevant statements.

but if the guy can beat the guy in said match- then attendance\draw has less to do with it. You can be a huge name and make the company tons of cash, but if the other guy can beat you all that takes a backseat.

But you have no way to show that Punk would beat Andre! Do you not fucking understand this simple concept?

You have given a scenario which might happen, which I countered with a scenario history has shown is MORE likely to happen. But NEITHER scenario is an objective analysis, they are both just playing fantasy booker.

Its still a competition.

It's not a competition if both guys know ahead of time who is going to win and who is going to lose. There's no "ability to win", except factors which make a wrestler attractive to a promoter, of which Andre has a far better history of than Punk.

They are there for entertainment for fans, just like it is in RL. Vince cares about dollars and company image but fans care about seeing one guy kick the other guys ass...No one says 'I like wrestler A because he sells more shirts than wrestler B.' You buy the merch of the guy you like because you see he has the ability to beat his opponents and he entertains you.

EXACTLY

Which means that if Andre is a bigger draw, he's more entertaining. Andre is more believable as a wrestler. That IS a sign of the better pro wrestler. You support the better wrestler with merch sales and paying for tickets BECAUSE he's the better wrestler. Andre was the better pro wrestler, it's that simple.

By putting on good matches using their ability that makes people want to buy merch. Ya I know how that works.

Technically their money goes to everyone employed. John Laurinaitis, Michael Cole, Josh Matthews, the camera guy, refs and many others dont entertain me but they all get a cut. I dont get to just buy tickets and all my money from that sale goes to one guy. Do you have special tickets? Do your dollars say "please give to Cena only"?

Do you realize how stupid you sound right now?

Of course everyone gets paid, but fans don't pay to see the cameramen or the refs. Wrestling fans pay money to watch the guys who entertain them. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Ah, but they are entertained by guys that lose. Jericho, Santino and plenty of others who lose alot- have plenty of fans that love them.

But they are not entertaining enough to pay money to watch. Sure, I'm entertained by Santino, but put Santino's name on a marquee and I'm not paying $50 to watch the show. Put Hogan or Andre or Austin or Cena's name on the marquee, and I'm parting with my money.

Wrestling fans are not entertained by jobbers. They are entertained by "the best". Jericho may lose a lot, but he already has the reputation of being on of the best. Epico doesn't, so people don't pay money to watch Epico.

Yeah I cant count how many fans flock to see Brodus Clay every week.... They must be behind all those Khali Dance-off fans.....

Do you know what point you're trying to make? Because I don't. I never said Brodus Clay was a draw, so I have no clue what you're talking about. I imagine you don't either.

Yeah, sometimes. It has a factor, but not the whole reason why.

No, it truly is. When you have a guy who is a guaranteed draw working against someone the company does not think will ever be a draw, the guaranteed draw will always win.

When you're running a tournament like this, you want each round to draw better than it did before. You're not worried about how a loss affects your stories down the road, you're only focused on building the best drawing card possible for the next round.

Then he loses those matches to CM Punk for the belt and The Rock at WM.

Only to build Punk and his character. But there's a huge difference in what the WWE does and what we're doing. The WWE is running multiple shows across the country, and need to draw fans 52 weeks a year. We're only worried about drawing for the next big card, so we're going to pick the guy who is going to draw the biggest crowd.

Do you see the difference?

But I see what your saying.

So then you understand why using drawing ability as a criteria IS a big deal when determining who is more likely to win this match?

Thank goodness, you've earned back a little of my respect.

How many kids love the hell out of Ryder, Santino, Big Show, Rey and others yet they have plenty of losses.

Those guys are not big draws. Andre was a massive draw, one of the greatest in pro wrestling history. Andre the Giant and Zach Ryder are not comparable when it comes to drawing.

By your logic if a man has alot of fans who buy merch and tickets to make the company money he will be undefeated. That is rarely the case except for a handfull of top stars and even they lose matches. The formula has merit, but not as much now as it did back then.

But this tournament is run more like it was back then. Back then you didn't have a weekly TV show where you trotted out your best workers to wrestle each other every week. In the old days, you ran shows in different areas of your territory, and each show you wanted to maximize your show's drawing potential. Furthermore, wrestlers rarely were committed to one area, so the wrestlers worked different areas of the country, which meant wrestling fans would not get tired of them winning.

This tournament is similar. Wrestling fans are not going to get tired of Andre winning the match, and each match is designed to maximize the drawing potential of the next card.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? Drawing is a valuable and relevant stat in this tournament because it determines who would be more likely to be booked for the win. And your argument has been "well, that doesn't ALWAYS happen". Well, that might be true, moreso in the WWE than other places, but by saying it the way you did, you recognize it happens more often than not. Which means it is MORE likely Andre would be booked to win this match.

Andre might have been back then, but in todays company Punk is.

In today's company, Punk was only the third biggest match at Wrestlemania, behind Cena, Rock, Taker and Triple H. Punk isn't even the biggest draw on his own show, much less the company.

Andre was easily the bigger draw, and would be much more likely to be booked for the win.

Yeah, I meant in regards to his win column growing- not necessarily physical dominance.

Punk's winning percentage isn't close to Andre's. And I'm talking about physical dominance.

He still has had far better runs as champ than Andre had, regardless of his physical dominance.

I have explained this multiple times. The reason Andre was not made champion is because he was SO dominant, promoters could not reasonably get the title off of him. Which is a far greater accomplishment than Punk's world title runs which have mostly existed in the background of far more interesting feuds (usually revolving around Cena or Triple H).

Yea in regard to 'drawing power' but even you cannot deny the physical similarities to size, height, strength, agility; etc. They didnt give him the nickname 'The Giant' for nothing.

Saying Big Show is comparable to Andre is like saying Dolph Ziggler is comparable to CM Punk. Would you accept me substituting Ziggler in for Punk when I'm making my arguments? Of course not, so don't do the same thing with Big Show for Andre. Just as Ziggler is not in Punk's league, Big Show is not in Andre's league.

Im not your TiVo. Go watch some matches. Its happened plenty.

No, but you ARE the one making unsubstantiated claims. So provide the example or admit you're making claims which are not supported by facts.

They are much more the same size compared to eachother. You know what I was referring to. I was talking about large sized wrestlers. Kane won 2 and lost 3 i beleive, Taker won 1 lost 1. All others like Henry, Show etc have been in a few and never won shit. As a whole, those type of guys have a losing record in ladder matches.

Is there any other qualifiers you'd like to add to your statement? How about over/under age of 30? By the way, Kane is 1 and 1, Cena is 1 and 0, and Mark Henry has never competed.

Do you do ANY research before you post?

MITB featuring Kane and Mark Henry. You know the one where Punk kicked Kane in the head and won the match? Lets not start debating the whole ladder/TLC/MITB thing. The goal is the same, weapons available are the same.

I love how when I ask when it has happened in a TLC match, you quote a MITB match. In what way is a 1 on 1 TLC match anything like an 8 man MITB match? How desperate are you right now?

This shit cost me a dime? You should charge more for this fantastic experience. I would gladly pay a quarter.

No no, I'm referring to the standard line about how you consider yourself so much greater or braver than others because you're standing up to me. I've heard that so many times over the years, if I earned a dime each time, I'd have more than $10.

 

[Benson]

Because how do you measure which talent entertains the most fans? The ones who draw are the ones who are the most entertaining. The ones who draw are the best. It's that simple.

WHile 90% of the time that is true, was Shawn Michaels not an entertaining wrestler? How about Foley? Neither men are necessarily proven draws.

They both have KO'd someone in one shot. Although Cena has also won a TLC match, so he has done both. Extreme Rules this year against Lesnar for the KO and Unforgiven 2006 for the TLC.

Cena got in more than one shot against Lesnar.

 

[JGlass]

WHile 90% of the time that is true, was Shawn Michaels not an entertaining wrestler? How about Foley? Neither men are necessarily proven draws.

You can be entertaining but not draw. It just means you're not as entertaining as the guys that are top draws.

Cena got in more than one shot against Lesnar.

What is Punk going to do that is equivalent to being AA'd onto steel stairs? Taking out someone's legs isn't going to do it, as all Andre has to do is get near the ladder and give a nice push to knock Punk to the ground. From there he has time to recover and make his way back to the top. Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever won a TLC match because someone's legs were weak. Usually people win after obliterating their opponent... maybe with something like an AA onto steel stairs?

The fact is there is nothing Punk could do to hurt Andre enough to keep him down long enough for him to get the win.

 

[Benson]

So are we saying that Shawn isn't as entertaining as someone who draws like John Cena, or that Shawn Michaels isn't as entertaining as Bret? I mean, I'm not being a smartass here, it's an honest question. Because Shawn was never a draw but he was undoubtedly one of the most entertaining wrestlers ever.

And about the whole steel steps thing. We were criticized for using RVD vs Big Show as some sort of comparison, and now people are bringing up John Cena vs Brock Lesnar? At least Van Dam vs Big Show had the whole size thing going for it. Also, we tried explaining what things Punk could do and got criticized for fantasy booking and baseless conjecture on things that "may or may not happen"

 

[nightmare]

Because he was a Super Heavyweight, not a Cruiserweight. Do you understand ANYTHING about pro wrestling? Do you understand what psychology is?

Besides that, the fact Andre DID do it shows your statement was false. Which is the point.

Kane is also considered a super heavyweight (over 320), not a cruiserweight yet goes to the top 90% of the time. Must be some reason Andre didnt do it as often. Leg issues or dislike of heights seem a credible way of explaining that.

No, "shots to the leg" is a fantasy scenario. You have ZERO proof of that happening in this match. You're suggesting it as a strategy, but that doesn't mean Punk actually tries it or is successful if he does. Thus it is not an analysis of Punk's qualities.

Proof comes from others trying the same thing in similar situations. It is likely to happen based on his speed and size of his opponent. Its human nature to do what you can to win, its likely he would try that as opposed to hitting him in the head. Do I know for sure? No, but I can make an educated guess based on the past given the circumstances.

My point was that Punk is a slow climber, you agree Andre would not be too hurt to stand up, so Punk has no chance in this match.

Leg shots would make him slower. Possibly falling off the ladder, plus leg issues and carrying his weight on said legs might prove difficult to get up or climb. Its not a hard formula. But who knows right? Havent seen Andre do that before so it cant be true. Even though its likely. By your account he would just walk in, punch Punk in the head and waltz up the ladder. Once again, could happen- but very unlikely.

You said the point of this tournament is to see who would win in a ring, and then argued with me when I told you it wasn't.

Once again then why have matches with different rules? Why not just use the applause-o-meter.

Are you fucking stupid? Like I'm seriously asking. I've never ONCE said you can only use attendance, mic skill, rating and tshirt sales. YOU were the one who said those are not relevant and I'm telling you they are.

Are you fucking stupid? I never once said you said that. I said thats what you use to base your vote on, not the only thing allowed. I also said they were relevant but not as much as ability when I cast my vote. Quit twisting words, you are smarter than that. You choose different criteria and anyone who chooses other criteria is labeled 'dumb' or 'ignorant'. My comment was based on- if your way is right then why is it structured in match format with rules of the match clearly written out in each thread?

I beleive my criteria is just fine and you beleive yours is. So I guess my vote cancels your vote out and we agree to disagree.

Because those are IRRELEVANT. I'm not dismissing relevant arguments, I'm dismissing irrelevant arguments like two wrestlers who have nothing to do with this match is worthy of being in the argument. I'm dismissing your CONJECTURE on what might happen.

How is past opponents or match history under similar rules irrelevant? The fact you used capital letters? It sure seems to be relevant to many people here if it is discussed so much- on a wrestling forum. We dont all just sit around comparing financial statements....

Learn the difference between relevant statements and irrelevant statements.

Relevant- Punk has won ladder matches.

Irrelevant- Punk has a pepsi tattoo.

I know the difference, just because you think a statement is irrelevant to your point does not make it irrelevant- no matter if its capitlaized or what your username is.

But you have no way to show that Punk would beat Andre! Do you not fucking understand this simple concept?

Neither do you. So I guess we will have to wait for Punk to die and then we use the big gold payphone to ask Jesus the play by play.

You have given a scenario which might happen, which I countered with a scenario history has shown is MORE likely to happen. But NEITHER scenario is an objective analysis, they are both just playing fantasy booker.

History has shown that Punk wins ladder matches. I bet he wins the next one he is in as well. Based on criteria you find 'irrelevant'.

Of course everyone gets paid, but fans don't pay to see the cameramen or the refs. Wrestling fans pay money to watch the guys who entertain them. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

We dont intend to but it happens nonetheless. The entertaining ones are not always the big draw. Fans pay ticket prices to see their favorites who entertain them regardless if they are in the ME. You pay because you expect to be entertained regardless if they win or lose. You hope they win, but dont ask for your money back if they dont.

You said:

5) Wrestling fans aren't entertained by guys who lose all the time

-yet they are, see my examples

6) The guys who entertain are the guys who draw fans and draw money.

-but if you draw money\fans because you are entertaining, you are booked to win right? So why do so many entertaining fan favorites lose each week? The formula does not always apply. Santino\Ryder are fantastic examples. They are white hot with the crowd and merch sells big, yet they lose way more than win.

But they are not entertaining enough to pay money to watch. Sure, I'm entertained by Santino, but put Santino's name on a marquee and I'm not paying $50 to watch the show. Put Hogan or Andre or Austin or Cena's name on the marquee, and I'm parting with my money.

Sure the bigger marquee names draw, but if they arent on the card, people still pay for tickets. If you hate Cena\Orton and they arent on the card- you dont care, because they arent your favorites. People like what they like. Andre had fans then and Punk has fans now. They both draw in their respective times. Back then and now are 2 different businesses, similar in ways- but also different.

Do you know what point you're trying to make? Because I don't. I never said Brodus Clay was a draw, so I have no clue what you're talking about. I imagine you don't either.

Clay is entertaining (not to me, but others), you say people pay money to see those that entertain them, and those that entertain are booked to win. By your formula he has drawing power. My point is that no one says they go to a show or watch Raw to see Brodus Clay. Your formula does not always apply.

No, it truly is. When you have a guy who is a guaranteed draw working against someone the company does not think will ever be a draw, the guaranteed draw will always win.

Yeah thats true but what happens when 2 big draws face off from different eras (like we have here)? Hogan was a bigger draw for much longer than Rock, and Hogan lost that one. That falls under passing the torch right? But what was the reason Rock went over Cena at WM? Cena is arguably more of a draw than Rock especially in the past 7 years. In fact Cena is regarded by many as having Hogan level drawing power. So what happened there? Why not pass the torch? Cena will continue to be a draw long after Rock so that makes him a guaranteed draw over the sporatic appearances of Rock. Yet he lost. Maybe they just feared a riot in Miami. Maybe it isnt always about drawing power nor ability to win. Maybe its just about what the fans want to see despite those 2 big factors. In all seriousness, regardless if this is suppost to be about Andre\Punk- awnser me that.


Now why wouldnt that apply in this match. Maybe people just want to see Punk beat Andre and that is how it might go down in booking if this were for real. Maybe people just want to see the underdog win despite drawing power? Maybe they want to see Punk win because they beleive he would win due to various reasons other than merch\ticket sales? Despite Andre's marquee name, size or strength there are plenty of people who see legit ways Punk could win. I am one of them, and by the look of things I am not alone.

This tournament is similar. Wrestling fans are not going to get tired of Andre winning the match, and each match is designed to maximize the drawing potential of the next card.

The same can be said for Punk. His fans arent getting tired of seeing him win.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? Drawing is a valuable and relevant stat in this tournament because it determines who would be more likely to be booked for the win. And your argument has been "well, that doesn't ALWAYS happen". Well, that might be true, moreso in the WWE than other places, but by saying it the way you did, you recognize it happens more often than not. Which means it is MORE likely Andre would be booked to win this match.

This is true, but you are forgetting one big part of wrestling that factors in to booking matches. Overcoming the odds. Underdog factor. That has played a huge part in wrestling. Rey built a career on it. Handicap matches thrive on it. The streak is 'put in danger' each year because of it when we question if the other guy can actually overcome the odds and beat Taker. Sting was reborn because of it by taking on the entire NWO. Beleiving your man can overcome the odds is a big part of what makes wrestling great. Punk -a man who is not as strong or nearly as big of a draw as Cena, overcame the odds and won the title.

In today's company, Punk was only the third biggest match at Wrestlemania, behind Cena, Rock, Taker and Triple H. Punk isn't even the biggest draw on his own show, much less the company.

Those are huge names to draw against. Yet he did just fine in a fantastic match that was seen as better than Cena\Rock by many who watched. Top of the card doesnt always mean better match. Bigger draw doesnt always guarantee a better match. He is obvioulsy not doing too shabby and has plenty of fans buying tickets or he wouldnt still have the belt.

I have explained this multiple times. The reason Andre was not made champion is because he was SO dominant, promoters could not reasonably get the title off of him. Which is a far greater accomplishment than Punk's world title runs which have mostly existed in the background of far more interesting feuds (usually revolving around Cena or Triple H).

I just beleive that is a cop out. If they wanted him to be champ earlier he would have been. If they wanted the belt off him, they could have done it. If he refused to drop it, they would have stripped him or fired him. It could have even led to a big money match down the line with Andre (the man who never lost the belt) vs the newly crowned champion.

Saying Big Show is comparable to Andre is like saying Dolph Ziggler is comparable to CM Punk. Would you accept me substituting Ziggler in for Punk when I'm making my arguments? Of course not, so don't do the same thing with Big Show for Andre. Just as Ziggler is not in Punk's league, Big Show is not in Andre's league.

You are taking that out of context. Never said he was as big of a draw or as dominant, just stated the physical similarities. No- Show will never be on the same level in history that Andre was. Yes, they are similar physically.

Is there any other qualifiers you'd like to add to your statement? How about over/under age of 30? By the way, Kane is 1 and 1, Cena is 1 and 0, and Mark Henry has never competed.

Quit trying to patronize me when you know damn well what I meant. You know who I was talking about because I said who I was talking about.

Yeah, Yeah. Ladder is not TLC and TLC is not MITB. Whatever, they are pretty damn close. Same freaking goal to win. Weapons legal, Climb the ladder, grab the prize. Its not a huge freaking difference. TLC was made to up the ante in a feud. MITB evolved from that to include the prize of a title shot. You know that, so quit playing dumb. You can fry a potato different ways but its still a damn fried potato.

Do you do ANY research before you post?

Yeah, you need me to look something up? I just found a good recipie for garlic chicken egg rolls. And earlier I found a new formula for latex facial prosthetics that work better than what we use at the studio.

I love how when I ask when it has happened in a TLC match, you quote a MITB match. In what way is a 1 on 1 TLC match anything like an 8 man MITB match? How desperate are you right now?

Eh, its similar as I said before.

They both feature wrestlers. They both have something hanging above the ring. You have to climb a ladder to win in each match. They also feature tables and chairs as legal weapons. They take place in an arena usually at a PPV. Do you get the point yet?

Actually I think its harder to win MITB, but hey. 7 opponents trying to stop you seems harder than 1. Never fought one myself in RL but they sure are tougher on videogames. I imagine its because those pesky extra guys pose just as much of a problem in RL as they do on the 360.

No no, I'm referring to the standard line about how you consider yourself so much greater or braver than others because you're standing up to me. I've heard that so many times over the years, if I earned a dime each time, I'd have more than $10.

Not really greater, or braver. You just dont intimidate me like you do others. Im not scared of your James Spader avatar, your big words, over use of smilies or the fact you call people names over the internet. To me you are just an intelligent, occasionally funny e-bully who likes wrestling and technology. No harm, no foul. Just a dont see eye to eye on this topic.



We are just butting heads over a difference of opinion in a fantasy tournament. We both have voted already and will not change eachothers mind on the subject. My 3 picks for this thing are HHH, Angle and Sting. HHH is gone, Angle on the way out but Stinger has a good chance. Even if Punk wins, I dont see him making it to the final 2. I just think he would win this and you dont.


Vote CM Punk.

 

[Jaffa]

Punk has had a large amount of success in ladder and tlc matches. Only Kane though has been the only opponent in these matches that was much bigger than Punk and that was a MITB match anyway. Andre the Giant was massive and could easily beat Punk in a One on One TLC. It would be a hard ask for Punk to hurt Andre.

 

[JGlass]

So are we saying that Shawn isn't as entertaining as someone who draws like John Cena, or that Shawn Michaels isn't as entertaining as Bret? I mean, I'm not being a smartass here, it's an honest question. Because Shawn was never a draw but he was undoubtedly one of the most entertaining wrestlers ever.

Clearly he wasn't, or else he would have drawn.

What I think you're failing to grasp here is that what you find entertaining doesn't matter. The only thing that matters in a debate of measurable entertainment is how they drew. You might think every single one of Hogan's matches is garbage, but the fact that he was the biggest draw in the history of professional wrestling proves that he's the most entertaining wrestler ever.

I'm not a huge fan of this argument either because I think a lot of other factors go into what makes you a draw besides the overall entertainment, but none of them are in the control of the wrestler (things like the economy, advertising, shit like that), but as far as arguments about being objectively entertaining goes, you need to talk about drawing power.

And about the whole steel steps thing. We were criticized for using RVD vs Big Show as some sort of comparison, and now people are bringing up John Cena vs Brock Lesnar? At least Van Dam vs Big Show had the whole size thing going for it. Also, we tried explaining what things Punk could do and got criticized for fantasy booking and baseless conjecture on things that "may or may not happen"

I have no idea where the Cena/Lesnar thing came into play. I just responded because you didn't seem to grasp the idea that there is NOTHING Punk could do to keep Andre down.

It's not may or may not happen. It's won't happen. In a tournament where we can only base our votes off what we've seen, otherwise you can just come in and say, "Well Lou Thesz was an athletic guy, so he could probably do a diving elbow from the top of the ladder."

The best you have is that Punk can try to take Andre's legs out, but I doubt that would do much. Andre would sell a ladder shot to the knee like it was a kick to the knee, and eventually he'd swat that ladder out of Punk's hands and probably throw Punk through a table. And then Andre would climb the ladder and beat Punk.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm going to post this up here, because I think it accurately sums up what needs to be said about this argument from nightmare. I've also left it in its natural place in the post itself.

Maybe people just want to see Punk beat Andre and that is how it might go down in booking if this were for real. Maybe people just want to see the underdog win despite drawing power? Maybe they want to see Punk win because they beleive he would win due to various reasons other than merch\ticket sales?

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe...I'm not talking about maybes, I'm talking in facts. From these facts I'm determining the probable outcome, which you seem to agree with, is that Andre would win the match. The fact you call Punk the underdog shows that deep down you know Andre is more likely to win this match. Which can only mean that your vote for Punk is based more out of bias fandom than it is out of any real feeling Punk would actually win.

And about the whole steel steps thing. We were criticized for using RVD vs Big Show as some sort of comparison, and now people are bringing up John Cena vs Brock Lesnar?

To show a one punch knockout is possible. We're not using Cena vs. Lesnar to make an argument on why Andre is better, merely that the situation is possible. Completely different.

Also, we tried explaining what things Punk could do and got criticized for fantasy booking and baseless conjecture on things that "may or may not happen"

Yes, and my one punch KO is also fantasy booking and baseless conjecture, I've said that several times. The point is that just as you can play fantasy booker so can I, which means it is pointless for either of us to do so.

Kane is also considered a super heavyweight (over 320), not a cruiserweight yet goes to the top 90% of the time. Must be some reason Andre didnt do it as often.

Because Kane SHOULDN'T do it. Even though wrestling is different now than it was 30 or or 40 years ago, Kane still should not be doing top rope work, especially as a heel.

Besides that, there's an over 100 pound difference between Kane and Andre.

Proof comes from others trying the same thing in similar situations.

No it doesn't. Using that theory, I can say the next President is going to turn the US into a dictatorship and kill millions of people because that's what Joseph Stalin tried to do in order to stay in power.

That's a ridiculous argument.

Do I know for sure? No.

Exactly, thus making it a waste of time to discuss.

Once again then why have matches with different rules? Why not just use the applause-o-meter.

I've already told you...twice.

Are you fucking stupid?

Even if I were, you wouldn't be smart enough to recognize it.

I never once said you said that.

Yes, you did. Right here:

Why not say- voting based on attendance, mic skill, ratings and tshirt sales because thats what Slyfox likes to base decisions on.

It very much is implied that is what I'm saying.

Quit twisting words, you are smarter than that.

Oh, I'm definitely smarter than you, but the proof is above that I'm not twisting your words.

You choose different criteria and anyone who chooses other criteria is labeled 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

I choose RELEVANT criteria. Saying that Punk COULD win because he COULD take out Andre's knees is a hypothesis. Saying Punk WOULD take out Andre's knees is conjecture and a pointless waste of time. Saying Andre is a much bigger draw is a relevant fact. Saying Andre is stronger is a relevant fact. Saying Andre was more dominant is a relevant fact. Saying Andre had a better winning percentage is a relevant fact.

You need to learn the difference.

My comment was based on- if your way is right then why is it structured in match format with rules of the match clearly written out in each thread?

The rules clearly say "who is the greater of the two competitors", not "vote for the guy you can come up with a fantasy booking scenario for".

How is past opponents or match history under similar rules irrelevant?

They are not always, but the ones you're referring to are. What happened between RVD and Big Show is irrelevant, because Big Show is not Andre and Punk does not wrestle like RVD. Punk defeating three upper midcards who are all average size men has nothing to do with defeating a 7'4" inch 480 pound giant who works a power wrestling style and was so dominant promoters refused to give him a title.

That's the difference. If you had a Punk vs. Big Show in a TLC match, that might be relevant. If you had an Andre vs. Bob Backlund in a TLC match, that might be relevant. But since you don't, and I don't, it's not relevant.

We dont all just sit around comparing financial statements....

Which is why you probably keep making ignorant comments.

Relevant- Punk has won ladder matches.

Irrelevant- Punk has a pepsi tattoo.

I know the difference, just because you think a statement is irrelevant to your point does not make it irrelevant- no matter if its capitlaized or what your username is.

Relevant - Ladder matches are not TLC matches

Irrelevant - Punk has won ladder matches

Relevant - CM Punk has seen his fair share of struggles against tall super heavyweights

Irrelevant - Punk has beaten guys who are nothing like Andre

Relevant - Punk holds a slight speed advantage against Andre

Relevant - Andre holds a significant strength advantage against Punk

Irrelevant - RVD vs. Big Show


If you truly know the difference, why do you keep bringing up irrelevant items?

Neither do you.

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 Andre would win this match.

The entertaining ones are not always the big draw.

But the big draws are ALWAYS the most entertaining ones.

Fans pay ticket prices to see their favorites who entertain them regardless if they are in the ME.

And more fans pay to see the big draws. More people are a fan of John Cena than they are of Lord Tensai. Thus, more fans pay ticket prices to see John Cena than they do Lord Tensai. You're just repeating what I'm saying, only not thinking about the end result.

You pay because you expect to be entertained regardless if they win or lose.

BS. You really think a fan of a wrestler doesn't care if they win or lose? You're lying through your teeth. I want John Cena to win matches. When Daniel Bryan lost in 18 seconds at Wrestlemania, this place was hopping mad. When Punk beat Cena, this place was euphoric.

People pay to watch their favorites win.

You said:

5) Wrestling fans aren't entertained by guys who lose all the time

-yet they are, see my examples

How does Jericho, former multi-time world champion and Santino, current US champion, lose all the time?

6) The guys who entertain are the guys who draw fans and draw money.

-but if you draw money\fans because you are entertaining, you are booked to win right? So why do so many entertaining fan favorites lose each week?

Like I told you, because the WWE is constantly having to juggle two TV shows every week. This tournament is not the same style of promotion as the WWE.

But when you go back and look, your top draws win far more than they lose.

The formula does not always apply. Santino\Ryder are fantastic examples. They are white hot with the crowd and merch sells big, yet they lose way more than win.

First of all, Santino wins quite a lot these days and second of all, those guys are not draws. I've said this three times now.

Sure the bigger marquee names draw, but if they arent on the card, people still pay for tickets. If you hate Cena\Orton and they arent on the card- you dont care, because they arent your favorites.

BS again. The house show with John Cena on it sells a lot better than the house show without Cena on it.

Clay is entertaining (not to me, but others), you say people pay money to see those that entertain them, and those that entertain are booked to win. By your formula he has drawing power.

No, he has drawing power potential. Which is why he is winning.

You don't seem to be understanding a very basic concept. Pro wrestlers are constantly evolving, they are never static. Brodus Clay is currently considered an "up and comer". Chris Jericho is at the tail end of his run. Punk and Cena are in their primes. Triple H is at the end of his wrestling run. Cody Rhodes is just now hitting his stride. Rey Mysterio is injured and in violation of the wellness policy all the time.

All of these factors play into booking a match. At least in real life. But we don't have those factors here. In this match we're talking about two guys in their prime, without needing to protect either man's drawing power, and with our sole focus on being able to create a card on the next show which maximizes that card's drawing power.

But what was the reason Rock went over Cena at WM?

Because Rock was the bigger draw. Not only in wrestling, but also in the mainstream media. Plus, by having Rock go over Cena at WM, you give Rock back instant credibility, thus maximizing his drawing ability, while you feed Lesnar to Cena to maximize Cena's drawing ability. It's all a big game, all designed to maximize everyone's drawing ability.

But this tournament not concerned with maximizing a WRESTLER'S drawing ability, we're concerned about maximizing the next CARD'S drawing ability. So we advance the bigger draw.

In all seriousness, regardless if this is suppost to be about Andre\Punk- awnser me that.

First of all, Rock is a tremendous draw. The last two Wrestlemanias have each done record breaking business. Second of all, the rumors are Rock is going to come back for a big show every now and then, and by having him defeat Cena, you protect Rock's big time drawing ability. If Rock had come back and been dominated by Cena, then fans could say "Well, Rock is old and never around, so as long as he keeps getting older and never comes back to get better, he'll never win". By having Rock win at WM, you prove Rock still is a great warrior, and fans will pay to watch him wrestle. Since Cena is around all the time, you can easily give him a few wins to recover whatever slight hit his drawing power took by losing to Rock...like having Cena defeat Lesnar, for example. But, with the way Lesnar lost after being dominant the entire match, it protects both men's drawing ability.

These are the things so many fans don't take the time to think about, but that a wrestling promotion spends their entire day thinking about. Hopefully you'll start to understand the importance of this.

Maybe people just want to see Punk beat Andre and that is how it might go down in booking if this were for real. Maybe people just want to see the underdog win despite drawing power? Maybe they want to see Punk win because they beleive he would win due to various reasons other than merch\ticket sales?

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe...I'm not talking about maybes, I'm talking in facts. From these facts I'm determining probability of result, and the probable outcome, which you seem to agree with is that Andre would win the match. The fact you call Punk the underdog shows that deep down you know Andre is more likely to win this match. Which can only mean that your vote for Punk is based more out of fandom than it is out of any real feeling Punk would actually win.

The same can be said for Punk. His fans arent getting tired of seeing him win.

I agree completely. The point was that Andre isn't going to lose because fans are tired of seeing him win. And because I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, Punk isn't going to lose because fans are tired of seeing him win either, but Punk IS going to lose because Andre is the superior pro wrestler.

This is true, but you are forgetting one big part of wrestling that factors in to booking matches. Overcoming the odds. Underdog factor.

"Overcoming the odds" and "underdog factor" are just another way to say "inferior". Does the inferior participant sometimes win? Yes, but not nearly as often as the superior participant does.

At this point, by calling Punk the underdog, you're acknowledging he's inferior to Andre. At this point, you've shown you're not basing your vote on who you think is the greater competitor, as it clearly states in the opening post of the thread, you're simply basing your vote on who you like more.

At this point, you've lost the debate.

Those are huge names to draw against.

Yes, and Andre is just as big as those names, if not moreso.

Are we done questioning who is the bigger draw?

Top of the card doesnt always mean better match.

No, but it usually means the higher quality match, unless you're going to say wrestling fans pay tickets for guys who don't entertain them. At which point I'm going to laugh in your face.

I just beleive that is a cop out.

No, it's a fact, one which has been substantiated by wrestlers and promoters over the years.

If they wanted him to be champ earlier he would have been.

But he didn't NEED to be the champ to draw. He didn't need to be the champ to be recognized as great. He was above that. He didn't need a title to draw, and promoters could advertise a card with the world champ AND Andre on it and do great business. Throw in the fact promoters couldn't have a reasonable way to get the title off of Andre and protect his drawing ability, they just simply didn't put it on him, because Andre didn't need to have the title to be recognized as the best.

If they wanted the belt off him, they could have done it. If he refused to drop it, they would have stripped him or fired him. It could have even led to a big money match down the line with Andre (the man who never lost the belt) vs the newly crowned champion.

Serious question. How long have you been watching wrestling? From this particular section of your post, I'm guessing not more than 10 or 15 years.

What you just said makes ZERO sense in the pro wrestling world Andre worked in. Andre didn't sign an exclusive multi-year contract like wrestlers do with the WWE today. Pro wrestlers just didn't do that. It's not how the business worked. Andre worked around the world in different promotions, working with different wrestlers. But more importantly, Andre did this as a face, a good guy. Ignoring for a moment the concept of an evil boss didn't really grab a firm hold in the US until Eric Bischoff, why would you strip or fire the good guy of the title? That would make fans angry and they would leave your promotion in droves. What you said makes sense in today's WWE, but it makes absolutely no sense in the wrestling world Andre worked in.

Your comment is ignorant, and I mean that in the true definition of the word. You don't seem to really have a grasp on what pro wrestling was like before McMahon took the WWE national. You don't understand what pro wrestling was like before the nWo changed the rules on faces and heels, and what pro wrestling was like before McMahon became the evil boss. You probably have never even heard that a good guy (face wrestler) should never open a match with a punch or a kick except in the rarest of occasions.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on the nature or history of pro wrestling.

You are taking that out of context. Never said he was as big of a draw or as dominant, just stated the physical similarities. No- Show will never be on the same level in history that Andre was. Yes, they are similar physically.

No, YOU were taking it out of context, by trying to compare Andre and Big Show. Trying to say you're only comparing physical similarities and then only using those physical similarities to make the argument Punk is better than Andre IS taking it out of context. You're taking out of context the fact Andre was much better in those physical attributes than Big Show is, and that Andre was better at maximizing what he did than Big Show is at maximizing what he does.

You are the one taking things out of context, I'm the one correcting you on it.

Yeah, Yeah. Ladder is not TLC and TLC is not MITB. Whatever, they are pretty damn close.

Only in the same way a "Falls Count Anywhere" match is pretty damn close to a classic singles match. Which is to say not really close at all.

Yeah, you need me to look something up?

Yes, anything which might educate you on pro wrestling. You seem to be severely lacking in knowledge on that particular subject.

Eh, its similar as I said before.

They both feature wrestlers. They both have something hanging above the ring. You have to climb a ladder to win in each match. They also feature tables and chairs as legal weapons. They take place in an arena usually at a PPV. Do you get the point yet?

They both shaved their heads. They both wore black trunks. They both worked the main-event. They both had goatees. They both had entrance music. They both held a World title.

Are you really going to tell me Bill Goldberg and Steve Austin are anywhere near the same thing?

Actually I think its harder to win MITB, but hey. 7 opponents trying to stop you seems harder than 1. Never fought one myself in RL but they sure are tougher on videogames. I imagine its because those pesky extra guys pose just as much of a problem in RL as they do on the 360.

That may be, but it's not like those 7 other guys are focusing all of their attention on you. Andre has one focus and that's on CM Punk. Big difference.

Not really greater, or braver. You just dont intimidate me like you do others. Im not scared of your James Spader avatar, your big words, over use of smilies or the fact you call people names over the internet. To me you are just an intelligent, occasionally funny e-bully who likes wrestling and technology.

Another dime.

We are just butting heads over a difference of opinion in a fantasy tournament.

Indeed, and I assure you it's not personal. But if you're going to say stupid things, I'm going to call you out on them.

Even if Punk wins, I dont see him making it to the final 2. I just think he would win this and you dont.

Actually, you've made it quite clear in this thread you DON'T think Punk would win this. You called him an underdog, which means Andre is the favorite. You just wanted to vote for Punk, so you did.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

To show a one punch knockout is possible. We're not using Cena vs. Lesnar to make an argument on why Andre is better, merely that the situation is possible. Completely different.

Yes, and my one punch KO is also fantasy booking and baseless conjecture, I've said that several times. The point is that just as you can play fantasy booker so can I, which means it is pointless for either of us to do so.

Maybe not so baseless, even the Punk camp concede that Andre > Show and in both real life and kayfabe you can't go from having a glass jaw to not having a glass jaw.

[YOUTUBE]DINtqRw3Xkc[/YOUTUBE]​

It isn't a stretch to imagine Andre's kayfabe punch equaling or exceeding Show's. Now imagine it's a chair or a ladder and tell me how Punk is leading here because of anything but fan worship!

 

[Larry]

I have been entertained to no end in this thread. You guys have been gut-busting hilarious with some of the things I've read and my stomach actually hurts from laughing at all the quirky and clever humor I've seen. It's really made my day, let me tell you.

I'm kind of disappointed looking at the vote count right now. I can't imagine or fathom how CM Punk is ahead or how this is even close. There must be someone out there making a fucking fortune off of rose colored glasses because there is absolutely NO CHANCE of CM Punk beating Andre here.

I fought for Andre in the last round to beat Verne Gagne and I'm proud to see that it apparently helped, and I've seen folks greater than myself making better arguments for Andre in this round, so I don't see how this one is so close at all.

I think this goes back to what I've said in other threads where a newer guy is facing an older guy, it's a story of "That Was Then, This Is Now"(thank you S.E. Hinton). One guy is here, now, on top, the other guy is a memory relived in the stories of those of us who remember him and YouTube videos, so there's an automatic bias or hurdle for the older superstar.

All the arguments have been made, and I haven't seen one that actually validates Punk going over. If not for the fact that it would seriously damage the integrity of this tournament I'd say that the popular vote should be overruled and the right man should move on regardless, and that's Andre. Unfortunately though that would be very unfair and we don't have an Electoral College to do that. Still, whoever is out there that hasn't voted yet, use your common sense here and vote Andre. Punk may be "cooler" than Andre by some peoples standards, and he might have enjoyed a great deal of success in ladder based matches, but he is going against an opponent he simply can not overcome here, an opponent few have ever overcome. The stipulation even works in Andre's favor because he isn't restricted to traditional rules and can really go ape shit all over this guy with no one and nothing to stop him. Giving a giant like him free reign with weapons doesn't do any favors for Punk, and no matter how many IWC fans adore Punk, it doesn't make it any more likely that he can win. Current popularity doesn't trump the reality of the situation.

 

[D-Man]

Results like this are the reasons why I hate this fucking tournament. You guys are so blindly faithful to your favorites that you don't see the obvious. Fuck Punk's record in ladder match types. Fuck his wins. Fuck his likeability. Andre, in his prime, would chew him up and spit him out in just about every match... especially this one.

This thread is making me ill.

 

[nightmare]

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe...I'm not talking about maybes, I'm talking in facts. From these facts I'm determining the probable outcome, which you seem to agree with, is that Andre would win the match. The fact you call Punk the underdog shows that deep down you know Andre is more likely to win this match. Which can only mean that your vote for Punk is based more out of bias fandom than it is out of any real feeling Punk would actually win.

Deep down I know Punk would find a way. Like a fat kid finds a cupcake, its going to happen. Just because I recognize why you voted, and agreed that Andre has a 'better drawing power' in the old days does not mean I think he would win. You see him as the underdog because of the hype that surrounds his opponent and his mystical attributes. It means I beleive in my guy to get it done despite what others say about him or how great his opponent is. Andre is stronger and taller, so that means Punk loses? Yin and Yang, my faceless friend. For what he isnt Punk is. Just because you have faith in your guy doesnt mean I should lose faith in mine.

Because Kane SHOULDN'T do it. Even though wrestling is different now than it was 30 or or 40 years ago, Kane still should not be doing top rope work, especially as a heel.

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

No it doesn't. Using that theory, I can say the next President is going to turn the US into a dictatorship and kill millions of people because that's what Joseph Stalin tried to do in order to stay in power.

Irrelevant to wrestling. Match history\things that opponents have done in said matches is relevant in wrestling. You make irrelevant statements to try and prove your point. Misdirection does not confuse me.

That's a ridiculous argument.

Sure was.

I choose RELEVANT criteria. Saying that Punk COULD win because he COULD take out Andre's knees is a hypothesis. Saying Punk WOULD take out Andre's knees is conjecture and a pointless waste of time. Saying Andre is a much bigger draw is a relevant fact. Saying Andre is stronger is a relevant fact. Saying Andre was more dominant is a relevant fact. Saying Andre had a better winning percentage is a relevant fact.

Fact is you say fact alot because you like to type the word fact. Fact.

Punk is faster, fact. Punk has won these types of matches, fact. Punk has had a better run with the belt, fact. He has held it longer, fact. He beat the biggest draw in his company in a title match, fact. Punk wrestles a hybrid martial arts style, fact. Punk uses his style to his advantage to exploit opponents weaknesses, fact. Punk can take a beating and still beat his opponent, fact.

You are right, typing fact is fun. Fact.

The rules clearly say "who is the greater of the two competitors", not "vote for the guy you can come up with a fantasy booking scenario for".

Based on criteria you choose. I choose differently than you. Our votes cancel out. You think your way is best and I think my way is the best. We are kings of our respective castles. We just have more fun here than you do at your castle. Thursday is taco night, and I would invite you- but I fear you would tip over the salsa bar and scream "IRRELEVANT" at my guests.

They are not always, but the ones you're referring to are. What happened between RVD and Big Show is irrelevant, because Big Show is not Andre and Punk does not wrestle like RVD. Punk defeating three upper midcards who are all average size men has nothing to do with defeating a 7'4" inch 480 pound giant who works a power wrestling style

Nicknamed the Giant, strong, tall, weighs alot, wears black singlet. Its close, but Show isnt French and his movies sucked compared to Princess Bride. And then there is the whole 'bigger draw' thing. Thats true. But its close.


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


I see the similarities, you see the differences. We are both right, so lets just join forces and say they are similar but different and then go out for a burger. Your treat, because you have so many dimes. I'll even help you collect by screaming "It's Clobberin' Time!!!" and hitting them in the leg with a chair.

was so dominant promoters refused to give him a title.

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

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

"Ok, but we will, but then we will get it back"

"How?"

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

"Perfect! He gets the belt and we dont get brained to death getting it back"

Yeah, Im not sure but that creative meeting sounds about right.

That's the difference. If you had a Punk vs. Big Show in a TLC match, that might be relevant. If you had an Andre vs. Bob Backlund in a TLC match, that might be relevant. But since you don't, and I don't, it's not relevant.

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!".

Which is why you probably keep making ignorant comments.

Nah, its because I feel closer to you when you call me stupid. We are bonding. All we need is a beer and a fishing boat.

Relevant - Ladder matches are not TLC matches

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".

Irrelevant - Punk has won ladder matches

Shows he is booked to win ladder matches, actually. If you are entertaining, people like you and buy your stuff- you are booked to win. Did I get that right? Yeah, I got that right. "RELEVANT!"

Relevant - Punk holds a slight speed advantage against Andre

Shows the probability of my scenario being likely.

Relevant - Andre holds a significant strength advantage against Punk

Shows the probability of your scenario being likely. Ok, we will split the points.

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 Andre would win this match.

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.

Your welcome America.

People pay to watch their favorites win.

But dont ask for their money back if they lose.

How does Jericho, former multi-time world champion and Santino, current US champion, lose all the time?

How the hell do they not? Santino is a hugely entertaining jobber who finally was given a belt after his terrible runs previously. Jobber means you lose alot. C'mon you 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.

Like I told you, because the WWE is constantly having to juggle two TV shows every week. This tournament is not the same style of promotion as the WWE.

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. All that proves is that they have big draws lose some matches to further storylines and keep things fresh. 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?

But when you go back and look, your top draws win far more than they lose.

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

First of all, Santino wins quite a lot these days and second of all, those guys are not draws. I've said this three times now.

Your formula says Santino is, yet you contradict yourself by saying he is not. So which is right? Your formula or you? Let me guess, both- right?

If he wins that means they booked him that way because he is a draw, yet you say he is not a draw? So we are booking for the hell of it, throwing drawing power out the window-letting the man win to give the IWC what they want to see? Ahh, good. That means Punk wins based on that thinking.

Which is it again? You win because you are a draw- or you win because you arent, but fans want to see you win?

BS again. The house show with John Cena on it sells a lot better than the house show without Cena on it.

Unless they are in Chicago or any number of towns where people could give two shits about Cena. Applies to any city that likes a guy better who 'draws' less than the 'big draw'. Then that makes the lower guy a big draw for that arena\crowd and the 'big draw' lesser. See, Punk does draw. How bout that?

You don't seem to be understanding a very basic concept. Pro wrestlers are constantly evolving, they are never static. Brodus Clay is currently considered an "up and comer". Chris Jericho is at the tail end of his run. Punk and Cena are in their primes. Triple H is at the end of his wrestling run. Cody Rhodes is just now hitting his stride. Rey Mysterio is injured and in violation of the wellness policy all the time.

Yeah, I get that. Clay 'future' future endeavored. Jericho loses alot now, then goes plays rockstar and comes back to lose again. Punk is prime and beat a prime Cena. HHH gets slapped around by Taker then Brock and starts borrowing Vince's suits, then eventually develops the McMahon strut. Rhodes future World\WWE champ. Rey likes illegal substances and will retire soon.

with our sole focus on being able to create a card on the next show which maximizes that card's drawing power.

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

Your welcome America.


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. Otherwise, dont bitch when WZ has a tournament and people vote on what criteria they see as relevant and is within the rules WZ has stated.

"Overcoming the odds" and "underdog factor" are just another way to say "inferior". Does the inferior participant sometimes win? Yes, but not nearly as often as the superior participant does.

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


Your 'inferior' winner in the 4th round of the WZ tournament - CM Punk. The 'inferior' wrestler that wins titles off the 'bigger draws'....

Serious question. How long have you been watching wrestling? From this particular section of your post, I'm guessing not more than 10 or 15 years.

Im an aries, I like tacos, long walks on the beach while listening to your velvet keystrokes, I hate the smell of middle eastern food and enjoy the comedy of George Carlin.

Been watching since bout 88/89. Long enough to know the smaller guy has the ability to chop down taller\stronger men to weaken them. It happens more than people getting KO'd by one punch has.

why would you strip or fire the good guy of the title?

Because they wanted another guy as champ and were scared said good guy didnt want to give up the belt? Seems easy to figure out to me.

And they did give him the belt then strip it away. He was a heel, but it happened. Quite easily infact. No one got ate or brained by the big Frenchman. Fact- he never won it back again.

Your comment is ignorant, and I mean that in the true definition of the word. You don't seem to really have a grasp on what pro wrestling was like before McMahon took the WWE national. You don't understand what pro wrestling was like before the nWo changed the rules on faces and heels, and what pro wrestling was like before McMahon became the evil boss. You probably have never even heard that a good guy (face wrestler) should never open a match with a punch or a kick except in the rarest of occasions.

Before 88? Not really seeing as I was very young and anything before the 80s I had to read up on when older or learn from older fans.

Like this tidbit of info: CM Punk has beat a superhuman powerhouse who is one of the biggest draws ever. In a big money match. For the title. Lightning strikes again! In a TLC match Punk beats Andre The Giant- a superhuman powerhouse who is one of the biggest draws ever!

Jim Ross should say that and tape it so I can play it on my birthday.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on the nature or history of pro wrestling.

Not near as firm as your lips upon the big Frenchman's backside, m'lord.

All jokes and funny French pictures aside, VOTE CM PUNK.

 

[Skillz]

For years, Chris Jericho had the blindest, most delusional fans in the IWC. Now that honour goes to CM "Overrated" Punk. Under absolutely no circumstance would someone like Punk EVER go over a legend like Andre the fucking Giant. Andre is a far bigger draw and better wrestler. But it's "cool" to like Punk so who cares about who would actually win in a match like this? Everyone knows you're smarter and edgier than everyone else if you like Punk.

The funniest thing I read in this thread is that this match would be "alien" to Andre the Giant. What a load of crap. How is it alien to climb a fucking ladder and grab something? I would bet that the average age of Punk voters is at least 10 years younger than the average age of Andre voters. Reading the arguments from Punk's fanboys, it wouldn't surprise me if the average IQ of Punk voters is significantly lower too.

The winner of this match advances to the final 8 of this tournament, a tournament to decide who the greatest wrestler of all time is. The thought of CM Punk being one of the top 8 wrestlers of all time is truly ridiculous.

 

[pumpkinking8987]

Everyone knows that Andre is the bigger star and he is the greater of the two. I just couldn't vote for him because of this stipulation. If you think we voted for him because he is currently on T.V, you would be wrong. I have more often then not voted for the Legends over the current stars.

I do think that I was a little bias because i thought Andre shouldn't of made it through last round. I didnt want him to win another round when the stip was clearly against him.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Results like this are the reasons why I hate this fucking tournament. You guys are so blindly faithful to your favorites that you don't see the obvious. Fuck Punk's record in ladder match types. Fuck his wins. Fuck his likeability. Andre, in his prime, would chew him up and spit him out in just about every match... especially this one.

This thread is making me ill.

Yeah! What D-Man said!

Fuck Punk's overly positive record in this kind of match!

Fuck the vast amount of wins he's accumulated as a multi-time world Champion!

Fuck how likeable he is!

Fuck the evidence provided to make a convincing argument!

Apparently Andre wins because D-Man said so. Even though in neither of your posts have you outlined any shred of evidence as to why Andre would win a fucking TLC match other than. "huehuehue Andre big, Punk little huehuehue"

It seems you just picked Andre because you liked him.

It seems like you're the one playing favourites here.

 

[D-Man]

Yeah! What D-Man said!

Fuck Punk's overly positive record in this kind of match!

Fuck the vast amount of wins he's accumulated as a multi-time world Champion!

Fuck how likeable he is!

Fuck the evidence provided to make a convincing argument!

Glad you agree. Thanks for the support!

Apparently Andre wins because D-Man said so.

Well, that and complete and utter logic. I can't take all the credit, you know.

Even though in neither of your posts have you outlined any shred of evidence as to why Andre would win a fucking TLC match other than. "huehuehue Andre big, Punk little huehuehue"

Shouldn't that be enough? You've got arguably the largest, most agile and dangerous man to ever enter a wrestling ring... a man who was undefeated for 10 years... a man who defeated men of similar size and stature as Punk (sometimes in a one-on-one match and sometimes defeating up to four wrestlers at once)... and a man who came extremely close to defeating one of the most invincible wrestlers of all time.

When was the last time Punk was undefeated for over 10 years?

And to further my point, I guess you missed my other, initial posts with long-winded reasoning behind my choices. I feel no need to be in a quotation war with every single poster that votes for CM Punk. My points were made, they're clear as crystal, and I really don't need to repeat myself and hammer it home. Our members can read, you know... otherwise they wouldn't be in here.

It seems you just picked Andre because you liked him.

Sure, that plays a part in it as well. You know, that and all logical fact pointing towards the correct choice in Andre being the victor.

It seems like you're the one playing favourites here.

I smell hypocrisy. Where's your explanation? Did you make it already? I must have missed it. Wow, your points were so intelligent and important that I almost forgot they were even posted in the first place. Great work

 

[steve_smith]

wtf! Punk is actually going to win this match.

The bookers would have to be high and out their damn minds to put mr. straight edge over the legend, Andre the Giant. lol, punk slipped them all drugs.

Andre could crack CM Punk's head open like it was a peanut. He would kill CM Punk in a real life fight. And I mean literally kill him. We all know wrestling is scripted, and they know that we know. But there is no way that anyone could watch these two guys fight and actually believe that Punk would win.

 

[D-Man]

Everyone knows that Andre is the bigger star and he is the greater of the two. I just couldn't vote for him because of this stipulation. If you think we voted for him because he is currently on T.V, you would be wrong. I have more often then not voted for the Legends over the current stars.

I do think that I was a little bias because i thought Andre shouldn't of made it through last round. I didnt want him to win another round when the stip was clearly against him.

But you fail to explain how the current stipulation hurts Andre in any way. How can a stipulation hurt him when he doesn't need to be confined to a rulebook, doesn't need to out-wrestle a much better than average wrestler, gets to use weapons at his disposal (thus making him even MORE dangerous,) he's near impossible to knock off the ladder once he begins his ascent, and where he doesn't even need to stop Punk from climbing a ladder because Punk will be too busy trying to get past him while he guards the ladder?? How does this hurt him?? PLEASE explain this to me.

Oh, that's right. Because he will be the first big person in the history of big people to climb a ladder. I guess the guy never remodeled his fucking home before.

This is so pathetic.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

wtf! Punk is actually going to win this match.

The bookers would have to be high and out their damn minds to put mr. straight edge over the legend, Andre the Giant. lol, punk slipped them all drugs.

Andre could crack CM Punk's head open like it was a peanut. He would kill CM Punk in a real life fight. And I mean literally kill him. We all know wrestling is scripted, and they know that we know. But there is no way that anyone could watch these two guys fight and actually believe that Punk would win.

What's up with people pretending they know exactly what bookers would do?

I mean there are some arguments such as Sly's that I can see why people would want to vote for Andre but it's mindless idiotic stuff such as this that makes me glad I voted Punk and other people are doing it too. Nobody in this thread can say they didn't come into this match already bias either against/towards someone, after getting some insight I realized that's just how this tournament goes. Now I'm not going to pretend I know the in's and out's of the tourney but after looking in the archives worst unbelievable upsets have happened so people really need to calm down. Honestly what else can you guys think of than Andre's bigger = automatic win.

 

[Benson]

How can a stipulation hurt him when he doesn't need to be confined to a rulebook,

Neither man does. The stipulation can work just as badly against Andre and his weak knees and bad back. Plus, the fact that since Andre is obviously getting a severe height and size advantage, that I'm sure he might take Punk a little lightly and Punk, being the cerebral wrestler that he is, would certainly have a few tricks up his sleeve.

he's near impossible to knock off the ladder once he begins his ascent,

Actually, as has been proven in this very thread that is false. Physics tells us that Andre would be very easier to knock off the ladder since the ladder would become extremely unstable and top heavy. Unless, Andre brings in Big Show's 300 lb ladder, but that would be purely conjecture so we can't assume that.

and where he doesn't even need to stop Punk from climbing a ladder because Punk will be too busy trying to get past him while he guards the ladder??

In that case, all Punk would have to do is strike and run. Eventually Andre would have to go after him.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Shouldn't that be enough?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

You've got arguably the largest, most agile and dangerous man to ever enter a wrestling ring...

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.

A man who was undefeated for 10 years...

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.

A man who defeated men of similar size and stature as Punk (sometimes in a one-on-one match and sometimes defeating up to four wrestlers at once)...

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.

Similar size don't mean jack, son.

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.

and a man who came extremely close to defeating one of the most invincible wrestlers of all time.

Oh he came close! I mean come on really, do they award the Nobel Prize for "Almost discovered Nuclear Fusion"? -Thank you The Simpsons.

Whereas you know, Punk DID beat the most invincible wrestler in his time....

When was the last time Punk was undefeated for over 10 years?

When was the last time America worked in a fucking Territory system and Punk wasn't the World Champion of an international wrestling conglomerate?

Sure, that plays a part in it as well. You know, that and all logical fact pointing towards the correct choice in Andre being the victor.

You haven't really stated any of those logical facts though...

I smell hypocrisy. Where's your explanation? Did you make it already? I must have missed it. Wow, your points were so intelligent and important that I almost forgot they were even posted in the first place. Great work

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

But hey, YAY FOR BURYING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Jesus christ you are dumb if you think Andre is going to climb the top rope and hit a seated senton on Punk. Show me where that has happened and I will gladly retract my astonishment at such a ludicrous statement.

[YOUTUBE]XncRww3woLc[/YOUTUBE]

At about 2:40

The way I see it, all the Punk supporters are basing their arguements on 'ifs'. If Punk knocks Andre out of the ring and if Punk takes out Andres legs or if Punk outsmarts him. With Andre the arguement is when. When Andre hits Punk with a weapon or when Andre gets his hands on Punk.

Unless we are to assume that Punk controls the match bell to bell then the only logical vote here is for Andre.

 

[Benson]

The way I see it, all the Punk supporters are basing their arguements on 'ifs'. If Punk knocks Andre out of the ring and if Punk takes out Andres legs or if Punk outsmarts him. With Andre the arguement is when. When Andre hits Punk with a weapon or when Andre gets his hands on Punk

Oh, so you've seen this match take place already? Because if not, I'm pretty sure that's just as much conjecture as anything else.

But Andre's bigger and taller so automatic win, right?

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Oh, so you've seen this match take place already? Because if not, I'm pretty sure that's just as much conjecture as anything else.

But Andre's bigger and taller so automatic win, right?

You missed my point. I have yet to see anyone, Punk camp or Andre camp, say that if Andre gets Punk he would not hurt him bad. The arguement has been ways Punk will attack Andre while not taking damage. Staying away from him yet being able to hit him and cause damage. In order for this to happen we would have to assume Punk controls bell to bell.

If not then we have to assume that at some point Andre controls and would do his share of damage with the weapons involved. It is not that Andre is bigger, it is that he is stronger and will do more damage. Usually the wrestler who does the most damage wins. Not always, but usually.

So again, unless we assume Punk controls and dictates the match from bell to bell, Andre wins.

 

[Benson]

You missed my point. I have yet to see anyone, Punk camp or Andre camp, say that if Andre gets Punk he would not hurt him bad. The arguement has been ways Punk will attack Andre while not taking damage. Staying away from him yet being able to hit him and cause damage. In order for this to happen we would have to assume Punk controls bell to bell.

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

f not then we have to assume that at some point Andre controls and would do his share of damage with the weapons involved. It is not that Andre is bigger, it is that he is stronger and will do more damage. Usually the wrestler who does the most damage wins. Not always, but usually.

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.

So again, unless we assume Punk controls and dictates the match from bell to bell, Andre wins.

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