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

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Hey you're the one who brought it up. Don't ignore it now because someone used your argument against you.

He used it incorrectly and ignored crucial parts of my argument, but sure. He rocked it.

For the most part TLC matches take place between smaller guys so they can do their spots off the ladders.

Thank you, booking for dummies 101. What's that? Tag team matches take place with 4 people?

That doesn't mean a smaller guy would beat a bigger guy.

Even though history has shown that speed prevails much more frequently.

Out of all the TLC matches you've seen how often has one finished by someone sprinting up the ladder and winning a race to the belt? None.

Because wrestling companies aren't interested in booking awful, cop out finishes.

HOWEVER, considering this match is taking place in WCW, I can very easily see fans getting screwed out of their money by a cheap finish like that.

Good point, Brain.

Who do you think is more likely to be the one down and out on the ground? I'd say Punk after Andre is finished punishing him. Speed isn't as important as you think.

Yeah, what do I know, I only looked at evidence based on past matches that have occurred with this stipulation and correlated it to Punk and Andre's match up. Evidence which shows that Punk is great at this match up, and generally speediness prevails. Whereas you did the hard yards and imagined Andre punching Punk really really hard in your head. Good effort all around I say, chap.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Oh cool man.

I appreciate where you ignore EVERY OTHER TLC MATCH EVER in making your point that Kane won one once.

I also appreciate you ignored how it was a Fatal 4 way, in which it wasn't 1v1 and so when Kane spent about 15 minutes layed the fuck out, he didn't lose the match.

But yeah, good points.

Laid.

Hey, you said he needed a speedy Hurricane. I just pointed out that in fact, he did not. He defeated a slew of former and future world champions working in tandems by himself.

Basically, experience means squat. Looking over the same list, look at how many of the winners were in their very first TLC Match.

Edge & Christian, though it was everyone's first TLC Match so I'd call it a wash.

Jericho and Benoit, who beat the only 3 teams to ever participate in the match.

Kane

Cena, who beat the man with by far the most experience ever in TLC matches.

Punk

DX

The Miz

So yeah, experience means jack shit.

 

[Nate DaMac]

As for the Tag Titles match with jeri-Show, shouldn't Big Show have just grabbed Shawn by his pencil neck, throttled him around the ring, and then knocked HHH out with one punch, stepped on both of them, climbed two rungs of the ladder and won the match in under a minute?

Oh right, because that didn't happen.

Lets compare Andre and Show.

They're both big guys who wore what were basically black one piece swimsuits.





That's it.

Big Show, kayfabe, has nothing over Triple H. Case in point, when was the last time Triple H was considered as someone who should feud over a mid card title? 2001? Show is still feuding over the Intercontinental title.

Big Show was never a world renowned phenomenon, Andre was.

 

[Benson]

You can make the argument that it's not the same but TLC is not Shawn's first ladder match. What a copout. Simply a technicality.

Miz beat a 60 year old man due to interference from Michael Cole. And he beat another man, who had no experience, so if you're giving a wash to Edge and Christian, you need to for Miz as well. Also, Miz had experience in the MitB ladder match, so one could argue that he's had MORE experience than Lawler.

Jericho and Benoit had far more experiences in ladder matches, with Chairs and Tables used, at that point in their career than anybody.


So, yeah, if you want to use the "Ladder matches aren't TLC matches" technicality you can, but you know you're just splitting hairs on that.

 

[The Brain]

Thank you, booking for dummies 101. What's that? Tag team matches take place with 4 people?

Just trying to speak your language so you can keep up.

Even though history has shown that speed prevails much more frequently.

Actually it hasn't as Sly has already pointed out.

Because wrestling companies aren't interested in booking awful, cop out finishes.

Which pretty much discredits your point about speed being such a crucial part of the match. Although that point has already been discredited anyway.

Yeah, what do I know, I only looked at evidence based on past matches that have occurred with this stipulation and correlated it to Punk and Andre's match up. Evidence which shows that Punk is great at this match up, and generally speediness prevails. Whereas you did the hard yards and imagined Andre punching Punk really really hard in your head. Good effort all around I say, chap

Yes I'm aware of your evidence. Wins over Jeff Hardy, Miz, and Del Rio. I think you would have to agree they're nowhere near Andre's league. I didn't say anything about punching Punk really really hard. Don't make stuff up. It makes your already poor argument look worse. Andre could punch Punk hard. He could also headbutt him, bodyslam him on a ladder, press slam him through a table, choke him out, and just completely overpower him. I don't think Punk can do any of those things to Andre. I would say the T and the C part of this match definitely favor Andre. I don't think the L will hinder him but by the time Andre needs the L Punk will have been put down by the T and the C, not to mention the dominant power of Andre.

 

[Benson]

Lets compare Andre and Show.

They're both big guys who wore what were basically black one piece swimsuits.





That's it.

Big Show, kayfabe, has nothing over Triple H. Case in point, when was the last time Triple H was considered as someone who should feud over a mid card title? 2001? Show is still feuding over the Intercontinental title.

Big Show was never a world renowned phenomenon, Andre was.

But when talking about their size similarities in this particular type of match, it does have merit. If someone's Andre size could just manhandle a guy Shawn or Punk's size, why couldn't Big Show? I'm not comparing Andre and Big Show's booking. I'm comparing the size advantage that they had over their opponents in a TLC match. Nothing more, nothing less. The people say that Andre would just throttle somebody, and climb two rungs of the ladder, why couldn't Show?

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I skipped the first part because it's getting too heavily bogged down in semantics. Suffice to say that we agree Andre's non-participation in a TLC match in his career renders us unable to judge his ability. We also agree that Punk has a certain expertise at the match up, regardless of whether it was against Andre or not.

Yes, and but let's look at what you didn't highlight.

What I didn't highlight were matches that were mainly impertinent to the point. Most of the matches you highlighted were losses in fatal four ways or triple threats. Ignoring the argument that Edge or Christian weren't speedy, these matches should have less bearing on the final outcome than 1 on 1 matches. Do you agree?

The 1v1 matches of most import are:

Edge vs Ric Flair - Win for me.

The Miz vs Jerry Lawler - Win for me.

Edge vs Undertaker - Win for me.

CM Punk vs Hardy - Win for me because Punk won it.

And the win for you? John Cena vs Edge.

From where I sit, John Cena and Kane are both guys who rely on their power to win matches, who have won TLC.

John Cena is the outlier to my sample. It was a one on one match up. He was the slower wrestler. He won the match. However, if we look at Cena as a wrestler, who does he more resemble? Punk or Andre? He's certainly far faster than Andre. He does top rope maneuvers and dashes around the ring far quicker than Andre. Could it be that John Cena is more like Punk than Andre?

Before we get anymore ******ed, lets move on, because the match up is CM Punk vs Andre the Giant, not every man who ever was in a TLC vs each other.

My argument stands as this: Slower, less agile people do not fair well in this match up. Is Andre slower than CM Punk? Undoubtedly.

And Jeff Hardy has lost 42% of all the TLC matches ever. SICKER STAT!

That may be, but that doesn't diminish from CM Punk actually winning a match with this stip.

Do you see how ridiculous this particular section of the conversation is? Andre is far greater than anyone Punk has beaten in a TLC match. You have no evidence to show Andre would not be great in a TLC match. You agree climbing a ladder is not a big deal, and you don't disagree Andre is clearly the stronger of the two, which means he is more likely to do serious damage with weapons.

When you start arguing to me why Andre is better, then I will start listening. You are going about on a campaign of hypotheticals (IF Andre had ever been in a TLC match) and disparaging comments on who CM Punk has faced. My evidence is solid, I believe. Where is yours? Talk about his influence. His drawing power. Convince me to vote otherwise.

If you want to focus on speed, fine.

Glad you agree that CM Punk is speedy

World titles, fine (though I wouldn't recommend that).

CM Punk has more titles than Andre. But you might understand my apprehension at diving in here.

Mic work? Feel free.

Yeah, CM Punk here too.

But trying to compare a 2-0 record against guys of lesser caliber against a 0-0 record, when both guys have wrestled hundreds of matches over the course of their career is simply a waste of tie.

You say speed doesn't matter. World titles don't matter. Mic work doesnt matter. A WINNING RECORD IN THE MATCH UP DOESN'T MATTER. I'm beginning to wonder what exactly you're judging this contest on other than name value and strength alone.

 

[Nate DaMac]

You can make the argument that it's not the same but TLC is not Shawn's first ladder match. What a copout. Simply a technicality.

I would rather show respect toward the people who work hard to make this tournament and not just discount what they've done. Besides, I don't have a list of every Ladder match on hand to pick through, I was picking apart someone else's work.

Miz beat a 60 year old man due to interference from Michael Cole. And he beat another man, who had no experience, so if you're giving a wash to Edge and Christian, you need to for Miz as well. Also, Miz had experience in the MitB ladder match, so one could argue that he's had MORE experience than Lawler.

Yeah, except I gave E&C a wash because there had never been a TLC Match up to that point, thus nobody knew what to expect. Miz and Lawler both knew what they were getting into.

Jericho and Benoit had far more experiences in ladder matches, with Chairs and Tables used, at that point in their career than anybody.


So, yeah, if you want to use the "Ladder matches aren't TLC matches" technicality you can, but you know you're just splitting hairs on that.

So you're totally just going to take everything I'm saying out of context here? MRC was solely using TLC Matches, so that's all I was using. Seriously, quit using douchy tactics.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Yes I'm aware of your evidence. Wins over Jeff Hardy, Miz, and Del Rio. I think you would have to agree they're nowhere near Andre's league.

Seriously. Can we get this out of the way please?

Caliber of opponents does not detract from having a winning record.

Otherwise, why do we laud Hulk Hogan for having such a great title reign when he faced awful wrestlers like King Kong Bundy in squashes for most of it?

Andre beats jobbers all the time, and yet you argue this adds to his aura of invincibility.

But when CM Punk beats WORLD CHAMPION WRESTLERS, it means nothing, because they were 'shit'.

As long as Punk has won the TLC match, I don't believe you can argue about how Hardy or The Miz or Del Rio were shit.

Otherwise Andre is not strong or invincible, because only beat no names like Killer Khan and Big John Studd.

 

[Benson]

Miz and Lawler both knew what they were getting into.

But how does that equate to a pint for you? It doesn't. Miz has had experience in a ladder match that used tables and chairs, on several occasions. Lawler has had none. Isn't that a point in Punk's favor?

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Laid.

Now you've resorted to correcting my spelling. Gee, you must be confident in your arguments.

Basically, experience means squat. Looking over the same list, look at how many of the winners were in their very first TLC Match.

My god this point is getting overdone, but just to prove you wrong, I'd like to go through them.

Edge & Christian, though it was everyone's first TLC Match so I'd call it a wash.

Glad you're not THAT bad at logical thinking.

Jericho and Benoit, who beat the only 3 teams to ever participate in the match.

DX

Kane

The chaos of a multi-man TLC match doesn't really correlate to a 1v1 TLC match.

Cena, who beat the man with by far the most experience ever in TLC matches.

Yay, one for you.

Punk

Are you actually listing a Punk win as evidence against him? Oooooh boy.

The Miz

It was Jerry Lawler's first TLC match too.

So yeah, experience means jack shit.

Oh wow. You have 1 legitimate point out of 12 matches. I think that might be called an exception to a rule.

 

[The Brain]

But when talking about their size similarities in this particular type of match, it does have merit. If someone's Andre size could just manhandle a guy Shawn or Punk's size, why couldn't Big Show? I'm not comparing Andre and Big Show's booking. I'm comparing the size advantage that they had over their opponents in a TLC match. Nothing more, nothing less. The people say that Andre would just throttle somebody, and climb two rungs of the ladder, why couldn't Show?

It does not have merit. Andre was much better than Big Show. If you're just going to compare size then why isn't every seven foot player in the NBA as good as Shaq? I can find plenty of 220 pound guys who can't hold a candle to Punk but you wouldn't want me to say because of their similar size Punk is no better than them.

The 1v1 matches of most import are:

Edge vs Ric Flair - Win for me.

The Miz vs Jerry Lawler - Win for me.

Edge vs Undertaker - Win for me.

CM Punk vs Hardy - Win for me because Punk won it.

And the win for you? John Cena vs Edge.

I like how your first two examples are against senior citizens who were well over a decade past their prime. If Punk was wrestling the Andre of 1989 I would vote Punk. However, Punk would not beat Andre while he was in his prime.

Seriously. Can we get this out of the way please?

Caliber of opponents does not detract from having a winning record.

Otherwise, why do we laud Hulk Hogan for having such a great title reign when he faced awful wrestlers like King Kong Bundy in squashes for most of it?

Andre beats jobbers all the time, and yet you argue this adds to his aura of invincibility.

But when CM Punk beats WORLD CHAMPION WRESTLERS, it means nothing, because they were 'shit'.

As long as Punk has won the TLC match, I don't believe you can argue about how Hardy or The Miz or Del Rio were shit.

Otherwise Andre is not strong or invincible, because only beat no names like Killer Khan and Big John Studd.

I don't understand how you can say wins over Hardy, Miz, and Del Rio make Punk a favorite against Andre. I'm not saying those guys are shit. Once again you're putting words in my mouth. They're just not anywhere near as good as Andre. Is that really so hard to grasp?

 

[Nate DaMac]

But how does that equate to a pint for you? It doesn't. Miz has had experience in a ladder match that used tables and chairs, on several occasions. Lawler has had none. Isn't that a point in Punk's favor?

We're discussing TLC matches, dink. Again, you're taking what I've said completely out of context. He listed TLC matches, so that was the only information I was going off of. Fuck off.

 

[Benson]

You're the one who's really splitting hairs there, man. Miz has had more experience in matches that involve a combination of Tables, Ladders and Chairs. Sorry, that in no way equates to a point for your argument. As a matter of fact, any reasonable person could see how that lends itself towards the experience factor on ours.

 

[Benson]

It does not have merit. Andre was much better than Big Show. If you're just going to compare size then why isn't every seven foot player in the NBA as good as Shaq? I can find plenty of 220 pound guys who can't hold a candle to Punk but you wouldn't want me to say because of their similar size Punk is no better than them.

True, but the point stands when others refer to the notion that a man of that size has more hitting power and would win the battle of the weapons, and that there's now way Andre could be knocked off the ladder, because Show was knocked off the ladder, and other arguments that are strictly based on size and not so much skill.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Now you've resorted to correcting my spelling. Gee, you must be confident in your arguments.

T'was just a joke, son.

My god this point is getting overdone, but just to prove you wrong, I'd like to go through them.

You brought it up.

Glad you're not THAT bad at logical thinking.

The chaos of a multi-man TLC match doesn't really correlate to a 1v1 TLC match.

Well you listed them as if they favored you. Now that they don't, they don't correlate? Funny how that works.

Yay, one for you.

I'm glad you're not THAT bad at logical thinking. Derp.

Are you actually listing a Punk win as evidence against him? Oooooh boy.

He went into a match with an opponent tons of experience and won. That's still a point to me. All I'm arguing is that experience means nothing, this is a point for me.

It was Jerry Lawler's first TLC match too.

And? Doesn't change the fact that experience wasn't a factor in who won.

Oh wow. You have 1 legitimate point out of 12 matches. I think that might be called an exception to a rule.

There was a minimum of 3 correct points there. This was all an argument based on whether or not experience was a factor. 1/4 of the winners proves that it wasn't, though it's likely a lot more if you don't put all of your little qualifiers in there just to suit you.

 

[Nate DaMac]

You're the one who's really splitting hairs there, man. Miz has had more experience in matches that involve a combination of Tables, Ladders and Chairs. Sorry, that in no way equates to a point for your argument. As a matter of fact, any reasonable person could see how that lends itself towards the experience factor on ours.

Do you read before you type? YOU'RE QUOTING ME OUT OF CONTEXT, IDIOT.

I wasn't looking through the history of Ladder matches, that information wasn't brought up. MRC was strictly speaking of the History of TLC matches and that's what my rebuttal was built on. For you to quote that and try to step in on a debate that you're neither apart of or, apparently, qualified to be apart of is underhanded douchery.

Now, if you were to have listed all of the ladder and TLC matches through history and I were to have tried to make the same points, you would have a point. But I didn't and you didn't.

Now kindly, fuck off.

 

[Slyfox696]

We also agree that Punk has a certain expertise at the match up, regardless of whether it was against Andre or not.

Actually, I don't recall agreeing to that.

What I didn't highlight were matches that were mainly impertinent to the point.

Your comment reminds me of a scene from Liar Liar.

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

Yes, I don't blame you for feeling those matches were devastating to your case.

Most of the matches you highlighted were losses in fatal four ways or triple threats. Ignoring the argument that Edge or Christian weren't speedy, these matches should have less bearing on the final outcome than 1 on 1 matches. Do you agree?

I don't know, do you agree that the rate of growth for a single blade of grass is faster than the rate of growth for a different type of grass?

All of which is to say, "who gives a fuck"? Seriously, why are we still on this argument. Punk has worked a grand total of TWO matches that are TLC. TWO. In those two matches, he wrestled a druggie and two guys whose combined weight is roughly equivalent to Andre. There is absolutely ZERO point to be made here.

If Punk was something like 12-0, then you might have a conversation. Hell, even 7-0 would be something. But 2-0, against three guys who never sniffed the Top 5 spots in the company? No thanks.

The 1v1 matches of most import are:

Edge vs Ric Flair - Win for me.

The Miz vs Jerry Lawler - Win for me.

Edge vs Undertaker - Win for me.

CM Punk vs Hardy - Win for me because Punk won it.

And the win for you? John Cena vs Edge.

Yes, and let's evaluate those wins.

Over the hill Flair.

Over the hill Lawler.

Over the hill Undertaker

Drugged out Hardy.

So congratulations, you're resting your case on three examples of guys in their prime defeating guys whose primes even Father Time doesn't remember, and the fact Punk beat someone who probably wasn't even aware he was in a match.

Great argument.

John Cena is the outlier to my sample. It was a one on one match up. He was the slower wrestler. He won the match. However, if we look at Cena as a wrestler, who does he more resemble? Punk or Andre? He's certainly far faster than Andre. He does top rope maneuvers and dashes around the ring far quicker than Andre. Could it be that John Cena is more like Punk than Andre?

He's not like either guy. Just like Miz, Del Rio and Hardy are nothing like Andre.

Seriously, when are you going to understand this simple point?

Before we get anymore ******ed

First smart thing you've said in a while, though I have a feeling you're going to ruin it.

lets move on, because the match up is CM Punk vs Andre the Giant, not every man who ever was in a TLC vs each other.

Finally a little common sense.

My argument stands as this: Slower, less agile people do not fair well in this match up.

Actually, as I showed, faster more agile people do not fair well in this match up. Did you not see all those names I bolded? I find it amusing you try and claim speedy people win matches, and when it's pointed out speedy people lose these mathces, those matches aren't relevant to the conversation.

I think you left your lesson on logic at home on the shelf.

That may be, but that doesn't diminish from CM Punk actually winning a match with this stip.

But it does destroy your "smaller guys do better" argument. Which means the only thing you're left holding in your hands is a stupid 2-0 argument and your dick. And neither are getting any action in this thread from anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

When you start arguing to me why Andre is better, then I will start listening. You are going about on a campaign of hypotheticals (IF Andre had ever been in a TLC match) and disparaging comments on who CM Punk has faced. My evidence is solid, I believe. Where is yours? Talk about his influence. His drawing power. Convince me to vote otherwise.

I already did. Refer back to my first post.

Glad you agree that CM Punk is speedy

I don't actually. CM Punk is very average as an athlete. Is he faster than Andre, yes. But he's not speedy.

CM Punk has more titles than Andre. But you might understand my apprehension at diving in here.

Absolutely, considering it's well known and well documented Andre never won a championship because promoters knew there would be no way to get the title off of him.

Yeah, CM Punk here too.

No doubt.

So you're left holding a 2-0 record, your dick, mediocre speed and a microphone. Somehow I just don't think that's going to save you against Andre.

You say speed doesn't matter. World titles don't matter. Mic work doesnt matter.

Why would world titles or mic work matter from a kayfabe perspective, which is obviously what you are arguing?

A WINNING RECORD IN THE MATCH UP DOESN'T MATTER.

Not when the record is 2-0, against competition that isn't in Andre's league.

I'm beginning to wonder what exactly you're judging this contest on other than name value and strength alone.

Well, since you seem to want to talk about records, how about the fact Andre was billed as undefeated in North America until Wrestlemania 3? If we looked at CM Punk's win/loss record just from last year, he would have more losses than Andre did over the course of a decade. Since win/loss records apparently matter.

How about dominance in the ring? Sure Andre squashed a lot of jobbers...but he did it in one match. Andre wrestled three or four guys at a time. Andre won battle royals. Andre was so dominant promoters wouldn't give him a title shot.

How about size? I've already talked about it earlier in this thread, you can go review.

And that's just the kayfabe arguments (along with strength). That doesn't get into drawing power, workrate, mainstream appeal, etc.

Let's review. My argument consists of one of the most dominant performers of all time, who won almost every match he was ever in with his incredible and never seen before and never seen since strength, using his incredible size to dominate a smaller and weaker opponent because promoters love the fact he has worldwide name recognition and is a huge draw.

Your argument consists of 2-0, your dick, mediocre speed and a microphone. Geez, who to vote for...


Vote Andre...unless you like holding Mantaur's dick.

 

[Benson]

Does it really matter though? At the end of the fucking day, Miz has more experience in that type of match than Jerry fucking Lawler. When all the hair-splitting is out of the way, Miz is much more experienced in that environment and any reasonable poster can make that correlation and not hide behind the technicality that it was a ladder match that used tables and chairs and not a TLC match. I get what you're fucking say dude, all I'm saying is that regardless, at the end of the day, Miz holds the experience factor over Lawler.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Does it really matter though? At the end of the fucking day, Miz has more experience in that type of match than Jerry fucking Lawler. When all the hair-splitting is out of the way, Miz is much more experienced in that environment and any reasonable poster can make that correlation and not hide behind the technicality that it was a ladder match that used tables and chairs and not a TLC match. I get what you're fucking say dude, all I'm saying is that regardless, at the end of the day, Miz holds the experience factor over Lawler.

Christ, okay. You're clearly not going to let this go so I'll just destroy this argument too.

Lets say that Miz did have the experience factor. Why is it that against a 60 year old man, he needed help from both Alex Riley and Michael Cole to win the match? Lawler had no prior experience, and he clearly would have won the match if not for the interference.

Therefore, experience=dick.

 

[Slyfox696]

Christ, okay. You're clearly not going to let this go so I'll just destroy this argument too.

Lets say that Miz did have the experience factor. Why is it that against a 60 year old man, he needed help from both Alex Riley and Michael Cole to win the match? Lawler had no prior experience, and he clearly would have won the match if not for the interference.

Therefore, experience=dick.

And let us not forget, Miz was the WWE Champion at the time, and Jerry Lawler is a color commentator.

So, for those keeping score at home, the TLC experienced 30 year old WWE Champion needed his henchman and a play-by-play commentator to help him defeat a 61 year old color commentator.

Pretty much renders the "experience" argument irrelevant in this case, doesn't it?

 

[Benson]

Miz dominated the match using his experience to pummel Lawler the entire match, but had Lawler beaten so bad that he toyed around and got cocky.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Miz dominated the match using his experience to pummel Lawler the entire match, but had Lawler beaten so bad that he toyed around and got cocky.

Uh, what? Lawler had disposed of both Riley and Miz and was climbing the ladder with Miz nowhere to be found when Cole interfered and cost him the match. Miz never used his experience to dominate the match, he used Riley and Cole to squeak one out.

 

[JGlass]

Yes, and let's evaluate those wins.

Over the hill Flair.

Over the hill Lawler.

Over the hill Undertaker

Drugged out Hardy.

Yes, let's evaluate those wins, and not do the shitty job that Sly did. Seriously man, if you're going to commit to something, commit to it.

Edge vs. Flair- Not only was Flair in his late 50s, but Lita also had to interfere to prevent Flair from winning the title.

Miz vs. Lawler- Not only was Lawler 60 when this match happened, but both Alex Riley AND Michael Cole had to get involved to stop King from winning.

Edge vs. Undertaker- ALL of La Familia got involved. Taker had the win twice before getting fucked by Hawkins and Ryder and then Chavo and Bam Neely. He almost won it AGAIN, but Edge was able to recover in that time.

Punk vs. Hardy- Hardy was on his way out the door, though this really has no effect on Punk's kayfabe victory. I will point out, though, that Hardy fucked himself by doing a crazy Swanton bomb, getting carted off by the medical staff, and not being able to recover to stop CM Punk. I'd argue that this type of win, while still a win, shines little light on how Punk would beat Andre, as I sincerely doubt Andre will be doing any sort of flippies from the top of a ladder to the outside of the ring.

So you see, oftentimes the "more experienced wrestler" wins because he is a stinkin' cheater and is facing shit competition.

I'd also like to point out that of all the WWE TLC matches, there are actually 5 times where the less experienced wrestler won. Jericho and Benoit beat E&C, The Duddleys, and the Hardys, Punk beat Hardy, Cena beat Edge, Dx beat Jerishow (Jericho had a TLC match under his belt unlike everyone else in the match), and Kane beat a whole bunch of people while flying solo.

So when exactly 5/12 of matches have been won by people with no experience in TLC matches (1/2 if you count Miz's win over Lawler, but since I'm being generous I won't), I don't think you can really count experience as that much of an advantage.

 

[Benson]

Miz was beating up on Lawler the entire match, Lawler threw a few desperation punches, Riley came up on the ring apron for a clothesline Lawler ducked and shoved him through a table below.

Miz regained the advantage, beat down Lawler with a chair, teased climbing up the ladder for the win, but instead got cocky and went up to the top rope, mocked Lawler, which allowed Jerry to recuperate and push him off the top turnbuckle, where he happened to fall through a table below. He beat down the ladder for most of the match, and in true typical Miz fashion, got cocky in the end and nearly cost himself.