WCW Region, Fourth Round, TLC Match: (2) Andre The Giant vs. (11) CM Punk | Page 8 | WrestleZone Forums

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

Who Wins This Match?

  • Andre The Giant

  • CM Punk


Results are only viewable after voting.
I love this idea that Andre can;t be beaten if he doesn't want to be. If Big Show can be beaten down by guys half his size, Andre can too.

What happens when a pitcher is throwing grapefruits?

[YOUTUBE]DINtqRw3Xkc[/YOUTUBE]​

That ball is outta there!
 
I still think the argument Andre can't be worn down by weapons over a period of time is utter ridiculous. Punk has beaten big men in hardcore settings before. You can't make the argument Andre in his prime wouldn't lose to Punk in his prime because how would know that since they were in completely different time periods? And yes the amount of TLC/Ladder matches Punk has won does matter. Like a giant with brute force has never been beaten by a smaller opponent.
 
I still think the argument Andre can't be worn down by weapons over a period of time is utter ridiculous. Punk has beaten big men in hardcore settings before. You can't make the argument Andre in his prime wouldn't lose to Punk in his prime because how would know that since they were in completely different time periods? And yes the amount of TLC/Ladder matches Punk has won does matter. Like a giant with brute force has never been beaten by a smaller opponent.

I've been asking for Punk supporters to provide proof of Punk debilitating a giant for some time now. Are you going to be the one to finally step up to the plate?
 
Seriously, will you people stop using arguments like "smaller guys have lost to bigger opponents" and "Punk has a good record in TLC matches", those are just horribly ridiculous arguments. If you are gonna vote for Punk because you for some reason are completely infatuated with the guy ok but at least say so.

There is no way Punk is near the level Andre ever was and because of this simple reason Punk would never, ever beat Andre in his prime. Punk and 20 of his closest friends wouldn't beat Andre. This isn't about "well Punk would wear down his legs" or "Punks too fast" it comes down to the fact the Punk isn't in the long run on the same level as Andre, he's not the draw, he's not as big as Andre is literally or figuratively and never will be simple as that!

No one would book Punk over Andre, it just wouldn't happen. How can anyone vote for Punk?
 
I still think the argument Andre can't be worn down by weapons over a period of time is utter ridiculous. Punk has beaten big men in hardcore settings before. You can't make the argument Andre in his prime wouldn't lose to Punk in his prime because how would know that since they were in completely different time periods? And yes the amount of TLC/Ladder matches Punk has won does matter. Like a giant with brute force has never been beaten by a smaller opponent.

It's not a matter of whether a smaller opponent has ever beaten a larger opponent. We all know how bookings have gone before. Hell, Rey Mysterio has a win over Big Show. But when was the last time that you placed a smaller-than-normal wrestler in a ring with a 7'4" 475lb monster with as much (if not more) agility than men like Vader, the Big Show, Matt Morgan, or Brock Lesnar? Well guess what... that was Andre the Giant in his prime. Now, take that scenario, throw away the rulebook, add weapons and the fact that the only way to beat that monster is to incapacitate him to the point where you can climb up a ladder and retrieve a briefcase.

Any possible chance for Punk to out-wrestle Andre is gone.
Any possible chance of gaining a cheap, fluke pinfall win outside of the ring is gone.
Any possible chance of cheating to win is gone.

Let's face it... any possible chance of Punk winning this match is gone.

Vote Andre the Giant. Why? Because it just makes sense.
 
Seriously, will you people stop using arguments like "smaller guys have lost to bigger opponents" and "Punk has a good record in TLC matches", those are just horribly ridiculous arguments. If you are gonna vote for Punk because you for some reason are completely infatuated with the guy ok but at least say so.

How is having proof that a person would beat somebody in a match that the other has never been in a horrible argument? if you are going to vote for Andre because you hate the fact Punk beat Bret last round then say so.

There is no way Punk is near the level Andre ever was and because of this simple reason Punk would never, ever beat Andre in his prime. Punk and 20 of his closest friends wouldn't beat Andre. This isn't about "well Punk would wear down his legs" or "Punks too fast" it comes down to the fact the Punk isn't in the long run on the same level as Andre, he's not the draw, he's not as big as Andre is literally or figuratively and never will be simple as that!

Once again how would you know that? Wrestling was in a completely different time back then.

No one would book Punk over Andre, it just wouldn't happen. How can anyone vote for Punk?

Have you met every booker everywhere in the world? No? Then stop using that shit argument. After reading horribly biased posts like this it gets a lot easier to vote Punk something I advice the rest of you to do.
 
I still think the argument Andre can't be worn down by weapons over a period of time is utter ridiculous. Punk has beaten big men in hardcore settings before. You can't make the argument Andre in his prime wouldn't lose to Punk in his prime because how would know that since they were in completely different time periods? And yes the amount of TLC/Ladder matches Punk has won does matter. Like a giant with brute force has never been beaten by a smaller opponent.

It's plausible, but can Punk actually get the job done without getting killed? It's not like Andre is just going to stand there and let Punk hit him. That seems to be a major fallacy of the Punk supporters, that Andre somehow can't move and defend himself from a guy half his size trying to hit him with an object.

Andre was damn agile in his younger days. His movements were every bit as fluid as Big Show's were in his prime.

Plus, for every win you show me of a little guy beating a giant, I can show a dozen more of a giant annihilating an opponent. In any setting.
 
Seriously, will you people stop using arguments like "smaller guys have lost to bigger opponents"

Gladly. I'll do that right around the time "Andre is bigger so he automatically wins" is used.
 
Punk beat 7 men in this type of match that included Show (same size, agility as Andre) and Henry (arguably just as strong his WSM title has merit in RL)
, yet he found a way to win. That has merit because it shows he can get it done.



'81 wasnt exactly the later part of his career, he still had plenty left to go. I beleive it was roughly halfway through his career when that happened. His health didnt start to get seriously bad until the very later part of the 80's. Regardless he still had leg issues since a kid because of his size\disease. Almost every big man ever has had issues with the legs. Just because he could pull a dropkick off every blue moon doesnt mean his legs werent bad. Zack Gowan has one leg and he can do that. Austin has shit knees yet still gets in the ring. Just means you work through the everyday pain. Once said legs are attacked in a match, it is harder to manuever. See examples in matches all throughout history.



He was agile for a big guy, so is Show. In fact Show might have the edge, although just slightly. No matter your name, size, hairstyle or date you wrestled in- its all the same. Chair to the leg = pain. Big men have a harder time moving around 350-400+ lbs on bad wheels. You dont have to run around like a cartoon charcter outside the ring or trick Andre into following you. It can and has been done just fine inside the ring. Smaller men have 'chopped down' big men for years.


Now lets look at this. How does Andre handle falling? Cuz that is a likely factor. What about if he gets tied in the ropes while falling from the ladder or chair shot? I have seen that plenty from Andre and it took a bit to get out. Plenty of time for Punk to climb.


Now we dont know for sure how Andre would fare here, but we do know what Punk is capable of. He can take a big spot and still get up. He can take punishment in this match type and still win. That is reality.


Andre would not exist in wrestling lore if he were 2 feet shorter. He wasnt exactly a technical dynamo and his size was his only real selling point A giant among men. He was chosen as an attraction focal point because of his size, nothing more. If not for his personality, Hogan slamming him and our fond memories of the Princess Bride I doubt any of you would care. If not for those factors he might have ended up in the same boat of other big men that have come and went throughout the years.


Vote how you wish. I stand by my reasoning. If this was a regular match, bodyslam contest, basketball dunk, car flipping, whack a mole or many other various matches\contests I would have voted Andre. This is a match Punk has proven to be victorious in multiple times and he has a good shot at taking down the Giant legs first.


Punk wins in the 4th round of the WZT in a TLC match.
 
It's plausible, but can Punk actually get the job done without getting killed? It's not like Andre is just going to stand there and let Punk hit him. That seems to be a major fallacy of the Punk supporters, that Andre somehow can't move and defend himself from a guy half his size trying to hit him with an object.

All I see from Andre supporters are that Andre would literally be able to kill Punk before he would have the good sense enough to grab a weapon.

Andre was damn agile in his younger days. His movements were every bit as fluid as Big Show's were in his prime.

And Big Show was beaten multiple times in that prime.

Plus, for every win you show me of a little guy beating a giant, I can show a dozen more of a giant annihilating an opponent. In any setting.

Every time you show me a giant annihilating an opponent, let's see whether or not there a jobber or one of the top people in the company.
 
I still think the argument Andre can't be worn down by weapons over a period of time is utter ridiculous.

But it is ridiculous cause Andre has access to exact same weapons that Punk does, & I'm willing to bet Andre can swing a chair, ladder, or whatever he gets his giant fucking hands on a hell of a lot harder than Punk can, thus he can do a hell of a lot more damage, also Andre will be able to withstand a shit load more punishment than Punk can. by the time Punk wares down Andre, Andre could have done enough damage to Punk to leave him a lifeless mess in the ring.

Punk has beaten big men in hardcore settings before. You can't make the argument Andre in his prime wouldn't lose to Punk in his prime because how would know that since they were in completely different time periods?

and in Andre's time period he was nearly unbeatable for 15 yrs. Punk in his prime is lucky if he makes it a month undefeated.
.
And yes the amount of TLC/Ladder matches Punk has won does matter.

Why, cause it's the only argument the Punk supporters can still grasp to to justify their votes?

Punk had trouble beating Show when he had the SES backing him up, Big Show dominated him each & every time the step inside the ring, the Punk army need to take off the blinders, stop being ridiculous & just accept the fact that Andre would tear Punk apart & win this match.
 
But it is ridiculous cause Andre has access to exact same weapons that Punk does, & I'm willing to bet Andre can swing a chair, ladder, or whatever he gets his giant fucking hands on a hell of a lot harder than Punk can, thus he can do a hell of a lot more damage, also Andre will be able to withstand a shit load more punishment than Punk can. by the time Punk wares down Andre, Andre could have done enough damage to Punk to leave him a lifeless mess in the ring.

What's up with people using the argument that Andre would do so much legit damage to Punk like WCW would actually let that happen.

and in Andre's time period he was nearly unbeatable for 15 yrs. Punk in his prime is lucky if he makes it a month undefeated.

This is another one of those can't compare situations because Andre was from a time where being undefeated was acceptable. In this time period Andre would never go 15 years without a loss.


Why, cause it's the only argument the Punk supporters can still grasp to to justify their votes?

Yes just like Andre supporters bullshit about Andre literally killing Punk in the ring.

Punk had trouble beating Show when he had the SES backing him up, Big Show dominated him each & every time the step inside the ring, the Punk army need to take off the blinders, stop being ridiculous & just accept the fact that Andre would tear Punk apart & win this match.

Everything you said but basically aimed the Andre supporters. SES Punk is a whole lot different then Punk now. A Punk that would sure as hell be put over Andre to make him look more legitimate.
 
All I see from Andre supporters are that Andre would literally be able to kill Punk before he would have the good sense enough to grab a weapon.

What do you expect to happen? Punk can't wrestle head on with Andre without being overpowered, ducking and dodging makes little sense because eventually he'd have to face him head on, and if Punk goes to the outside and grabs a weapon do you really expect Andre to just stand there and take it?

The odds of CM Punk being able to incapacitate Andre in order to climb a ladder, are less than the chances of Andre being able to incapacitate Punk and climbing a ladder.

And Big Show was beaten multiple times in that prime.

:lmao:

Big Show has never been booked as strongly as Andre. Andre in his prime was booked stronger than Vader was in Japan.

Every time you show me a giant annihilating an opponent, let's see whether or not there a jobber or one of the top people in the company.

I can name several, can you show me any matches where a small man has convincingly beaten a giant in a a big match setting? I can't think of many.
 
How is having proof that a person would beat somebody in a match that the other has never been in a horrible argument? if you are going to vote for Andre because you hate the fact Punk beat Bret last round then say so.

Once again how would you know that? Wrestling was in a completely different time back then.

Have you met every booker everywhere in the world? No? Then stop using that shit argument. After reading horribly biased posts like this it gets a lot easier to vote Punk something I advice the rest of you to do.

Its not biased at all, especially since Punks been my favorite wrestler for the last 3 years. Realistically he ain't winning this match, it has nothing to do with bias, its just common sense.

I don't have to know every booker ever to know its straight up a bad idea for Andre to lose to Punk, a guy who although very good isn't mainstream and hasn't made a hundredth of the money or made a hundredth of the impact Andre has for wrestling.

Andre wins because he would always be ahead of Punk in every facet of the business. Frankly, saying its a TLC match so it benefits Punk is the worst argument that could be made because historically it has never mattered. The person who wins in usually the one who is best for business. Andre winning is best for business, Andre was bigger than wrestling, Punk is no where near that and probably never will be.

Its not rocket science, its common sense.
 
What do you expect to happen? Punk can't wrestle head on with Andre without being overpowered, ducking and dodging makes little sense because eventually he'd have to face him head on, and if Punk goes to the outside and grabs a weapon do you really expect Andre to just stand there and take it?

The odds of CM Punk being able to incapacitate Andre in order to climb a ladder, are less than the chances of Andre being able to incapacitate Punk and climbing a ladder.

Not it's the notion that you think Punk is an idiot and would even try to mat wrestle with Andre and Andre can't be hit by weapons that is making me think your an idiot.


:lmao:

Big Show has never been booked as strongly as Andre. Andre in his prime was booked stronger than Vader was in Japan.

Can't dispute that.

I can name several, can you show me any matches where a small man has convincingly beaten a giant in a a big match setting? I can't think of many.

Mysterio/Show
HHH/Khali
Cena/Umaga
Cena/Khali
Punk/Henry
Cena/Kane
Eddie Guerrero/Lesnar

Now I know not all of these were exactly big match setting but they are examples none the less. I'm expecting yours in the next reply.
 
Its not biased at all, especially since Punks been my favorite wrestler for the last 3 years. Realistically he ain't winning this match, it has nothing to do with bias, its just common sense.

I don't have to know every booker ever to know its straight up a bad idea for Andre to lose to Punk, a guy who although very good isn't mainstream and hasn't made a hundredth of the money or made a hundredth of the impact Andre has for wrestling.

Andre wins because he would always be ahead of Punk in every facet of the business. Frankly, saying its a TLC match so it benefits Punk is the worst argument that could be made because historically it has never mattered. The person who wins in usually the one who is best for business. Andre winning is best for business, Andre was bigger than wrestling, Punk is no where near that and probably never will be.

Its not rocket science, its common sense.

If every match or fight went off common sense then almost none of the stars of today would have any wins. Basing a match off which guy is bigger is just stupid. Believing a person has a chance is what makes a match exciting.
 
Mysterio/Show

Rey has never beat Big Show one-on-one. Where's the proof?

HHH/Khali
Cena/Umaga
Cena/Khali
Punk/Henry
Cena/Kane

Difference is that Cena and HHH (moreso Cena) are brawlers and power guys. I don't see Punk doing the same things that Cena has done to slay giants.

Eddie Guerrero/Lesnar

Hardly convincing. It took him 30 minutes, a spear from Goldberg, and a DDT onto a belt to beat Lesnar.
 
Rey has never beat Big Show one-on-one. Where's the proof?

[YOUTUBE]uFtBKrm9Ndk[/YOUTUBE]

Difference is that Cena and HHH (moreso Cena) are brawlers and power guys. I don't see Punk doing the same things that Cena has done to slay giants.

Punk is a brawler, and he's in a setting with weapons, I'm sure he'll figure something out.


Hardly convincing. It took him 30 minutes, a spear from Goldberg, and a DDT onto a belt to beat Lesnar.

Who said anything about it being clean? Regardless it happened.
 
Not it's the notion that you think Punk is an idiot and would even try to mat wrestle with Andre and Andre can't be hit by weapons that is making me think your an idiot.

I don't think Punk would try and wrestle Andre directly, I think he'd go for a weapon right away. But I don't think Andre would just stand there and let himself be hit and not defend himself.

I never said Andre couldn't be hit by weapons; don't know where you got that notion from.

Mysterio/Show
HHH/Khali
Cena/Umaga
Cena/Khali
Punk/Henry
Cena/Kane
Eddie Guerrero/Lesnar

HHH and Cena aren't small guys in the slightest. Both are pushing 250+ and Punk is about 220 when wet.

The only one on the list that's really viable, as Brock was on his way out, is Punk vs Henry and that was a recet episode of RAW... and Henry had Punk beaten in whatever fashion twice prior to that match.

Not really a convincing list that would make me believe that Punk would plotkai some kind of miracle win over Andre in his prime.
 
What's up with people using the argument that Andre would do so much legit damage to Punk like WCW would actually let that happen.

Because Andre could do so much legit damage, it's pretty well documented that if you crossed Andre in the ring he'd fuck you up. Also enough with the "how this would be booked" bullshit, we're suppose to be arguing these matches based on Kayfabe, not how each promotion would book the match.

This is another one of those can't compare situations because Andre was from a time where being undefeated was acceptable. In this time period Andre would never go 15 years without a loss.

This is another one of those you refusing to just accept the fact the Andre dominates Punk in every way in this match, so you resort to the you can't compare cause they're from different time period bullshit. If you're going to play the can't compare cause they're from different times argument than what's stopping me from using it in response to you claiming Andre would never go 15 yrs. without a loss in this time period?

Yes just like Andre supporters bullshit about Andre literally killing Punk in the ring.

When people say Andre would kill Punk in the ring I seriously doubt they're being literal. I think they mean he would dominate the fuck out of him & beat him down until he couldn't go any more.

Everything you said but basically aimed the Andre supporters. SES Punk is a whole lot different then Punk now. A Punk that would sure as hell be put over Andre to make him look more legitimate.

:rolleyes:
 
I don't think Punk would try and wrestle Andre directly, I think he'd go for a weapon right away. But I don't think Andre would just stand there and let himself be hit and not defend himself.

I never said Andre couldn't be hit by weapons; don't know where you got that notion from.

My apologies, that was from other Andre supporters posts. But regardless I still think Punk could do something to wear him down.

HHH and Cena aren't small guys in the slightest. Both are pushing 250+ and Punk is about 220 when wet.

But their opponents were still way larger than them, it doesn't really make a bit of difference.

The only one on the list that's really viable, as Brock was on his way out, is Punk vs Henry and that was a recet episode of RAW... and Henry had Punk beaten in whatever fashion twice prior to that match.

Not really a convincing list that would make me believe that Punk would plotkai some kind of miracle win over Andre in his prime.

Henry never pinned Punk in any of those other two matches. Still waiting on you showing me a giant that consistently ran through main eventers.
 
[YOUTUBE]uFtBKrm9Ndk[/YOUTUBE]

Gotta love those countout matches. Punk can't win this match by countout.



Punk is a brawler, and he's in a setting with weapons, I'm sure he'll figure something out.

Andre is a giant and he's in a setting with weapons. I'm sure he'll figure something out as well.




Who said anything about it being clean? Regardless it happened.

I don't see anybody helping Punk to take care of Andre. What I've heard is that SES Punk wasn't the Punk he is now so he's all by his lonesome.
 
I don't think Punk would try and wrestle Andre directly, I think he'd go for a weapon right away. But I don't think Andre would just stand there and let himself be hit and not defend himself.

I never said Andre couldn't be hit by weapons; don't know where you got that notion from.



HHH and Cena aren't small guys in the slightest. Both are pushing 250+ and Punk is about 220 when wet.

The only one on the list that's really viable, as Brock was on his way out, is Punk vs Henry and that was a recet episode of RAW... and Henry had Punk beaten in whatever fashion twice prior to that match.

Not really a convincing list that would make me believe that Punk would plotkai some kind of miracle win over Andre in his prime.

EDIT: As for my matches Kane squashes Chavo for the ECW title, Kane squashes Mysterio for the World title, Mysterio loses title defenses against Khali and Mark Henry, Henry flattens Bryan in a cage match with the title on the line. That's just off the top of my head.

I don't think Punk would try and wrestle Andre directly, I think he'd go for a weapon right away. But I don't think Andre would just stand there and let himself be hit and not defend himself.

I never said Andre couldn't be hit by weapons; don't know where you got that notion from.



HHH and Cena aren't small guys in the slightest. Both are pushing 250+ and Punk is about 220 when wet.

The only one on the list that's really viable, as Brock was on his way out, is Punk vs Henry and that was a recet episode of RAW... and Henry had Punk beaten in whatever fashion twice prior to that match.

Not really a convincing list that would make me believe that Punk would plotkai some kind of miracle win over Andre in his prime.

EDIT: As for my matches Kane squashes Chavo for the ECW title, Kane squashes Mysterio for the World title, Mysterio loses title defenses against Khali and Mark Henry, Henry flattens Bryan in a cage match with the title on the line. That's just off the top of my head.
 
Because Andre could do so much legit damage, it's pretty well documented that if you crossed Andre in the ring he'd fuck you up. Also enough with the "how this would be booked" bullshit, we're suppose to be arguing these matches based on Kayfabe, not how each promotion would book the match.

I'm not the one who brought up how this would be booked.


This is another one of those you refusing to just accept the fact the Andre dominates Punk in every way in this match, so you resort to the you can't compare cause they're from different time period bullshit. If you're going to play the can't compare cause they're from different times argument than what's stopping me from using it in response to you claiming Andre would never go 15 yrs. without a loss in this time period?

Nothing really, nothing stopping you from stating your opinion, I just think it's ******ed.

When people say Andre would kill Punk in the ring I seriously doubt they're being literal. I think they mean he would dominate the fuck out of him & beat him down until he couldn't go any more.



:rolleyes:

Yes I know that, I just don't think it would happen as instantly as some say.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top