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

[klunderbunker]

Let me summarize what is being said here.

Andre the Giant faced Hulk Hogan on March 29, 1987 in the biggest match in wrestling history at Wrestlemania 3. Hulk Hogan was at the height of his powers and the match is widely seen as a passing of the torch. Andre was a shell of himself and he almost beat Hogan. Less than a year later, he did beat Hogan and took the title from him.

What we're supposed to believe is that CM Punk, a small, non-power guy, is supposed to be able to do what Hulk Hogan in the late 80s could barely do. CM Punk is probably my favorite wrestler at the moment, but to imply that ANYONE not named Steve Austin could equal what Hulk Hogan in the 80s did is just laughable.

The argument seems to be that Punk will hurt Andre enough to climb the ladder. While Punk is using all of these weapons, is Andre just going to be standing there and letting him? Are we supposed to believe that Andre isn't going to be able to get a single shot in/ When Andre was at his best, he would come off the top with a seated senton. If that hits, and it certainly could, Punk is going to be dead. A single punch to a chair that Punk is holding would knock him out. A single chair shot from Andre would hurt more than 10 from Punk.

What I'm supposed to believe is that Punk, a career midcarder in WWE who cut one big promo and has ridden that promo for the last ten months, could do what Hulk Hogan in 1988 couldn't do and defeat Andre the Giant because he could hit a few chair and ladder shots.

Anyone that believes this is a legitimate possibility is either delusional or has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

 

[The Brain]

Good Lord this thread sucks. So many of you owe an apology to the readers for posting such ridiculous arguments. Let’s review some basic things.

Andre the Giant can climb a ladder. I think by this point in the thread most of us agree on this. Sure Punk can do it faster but if you actually take just a little bit of time to think about the match you will realize that is irrelevant.

CM Punk can push over a ladder while Andre is on top of it. That does not automatically give him a win.

BIG SHOW IS NOT ANDRE THE GIANT. He never has been and never will be as good as Andre was in his prime. Quit using the similar size of Andre and Show and Show’s losses as reasons Andre would lose this match. I’ve seen Andre the Giant beat Jim Powers. Powers was similar in size to Punk. Since Andre beat Powers that means he can beat Punk, right? If you don’t accept that argument quit bringing up Big Show.

CM Punk can use weapons. That is absolutely true but what everyone seems to be forgetting is Andre can use them too. I’ve never understood the “he knows how to use weapons” argument. Does a wrestler really need a plethora of experience swinging an object to do it effectively? I would say the bigger and stronger guy would be more dangerous with a weapon. Just because Punk gets his hand on a weapon doesn’t mean he will be able to use it successfully.

Basically it seems like the Punk supporters are desperate to find something, anything, Punk can do to Andre to give him the chance to win. That is because we all know Punk is simply overmatched. He is not the type of guy that would get a win over Andre. The stipulation only gives him a chance so a fourth round match in the tournament isn’t a total squash.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Let me summarize what is being said here.

Andre the Giant faced Hulk Hogan on March 29, 1987 in the biggest match in wrestling history at Wrestlemania 3. Hulk Hogan was at the height of his powers and the match is widely seen as a passing of the torch. Andre was a shell of himself and he almost beat Hogan. Less than a year later, he did beat Hogan and took the title from him.

He almost beat Hogan at Wrestlemania 3. But he didn't. A win is a win is a win, and he lost the match.

And come on KB, you know as well as I do that Andre didn't actually pin Hogan legitimately.

The Main Event I
Hogan clearly gets his shoulder well off the mat at about one and a half and the referee keeps counting anyway, getting to three and declaring Andre as the winner.

No I was being serious, you actually watched the match and know that he didn't beat Hogan 1-2-3.

What we're supposed to believe is that CM Punk, a small, non-power guy, is supposed to be able to do what Hulk Hogan in the late 80s could barely do. CM Punk is probably my favorite wrestler at the moment, but to imply that ANYONE not named Steve Austin could equal what Hulk Hogan in the 80s did is just laughable.

Are...are you kidding me? Lot's of people beat Andre. And they certainly weren't called Steve Austin.

El Canek beat him, as did Antonio Inoki. The Ultimate Warrior for one DOMINATED Andre. More than once.

CM Punk has actually beaten the biggest superstar of his generation. 3 times.

The argument seems to be that Punk will hurt Andre enough to climb the ladder. While Punk is using all of these weapons, is Andre just going to be standing there and letting him? Are we supposed to believe that Andre isn't going to be able to get a single shot in/ When Andre was at his best, he would come off the top with a seated senton. If that hits, and it certainly could, Punk is going to be dead. A single punch to a chair that Punk is holding would knock him out. A single chair shot from Andre would hurt more than 10 from Punk.

Because Punk is REALLY that dumb, to go head to head in a straight up fight with Andre the Giant. Let me repeat: HE DOESN'T HAVE TO HURT ANDRE NECESSARILY TO WIN THE MATCH UP. CM Punk has proven time and time again to be incredibly intelligent, and wouldn't fight him straight up. He might get a few pot shots in with the legs, but my bet is he blindsides him and gets Andre's arms caught up in the ropes. This was a spot Andre LOVED to do (See Wrestlemania VI for just one example). While Andre is trapped, CM Punk climbs the ladder and wins.

What I'm supposed to believe is that Punk, a career midcarder in WWE who cut one big promo and has ridden that promo for the last ten months, could do what Hulk Hogan in 1988 couldn't do and defeat Andre the Giant because he could hit a few chair and ladder shots.

Hogan in 1988 didn't lose. Hogan beat Andre lots of times. Stop using this inane comparison, when you know perfectly well Hogan along with a handful of others beat Andre.

You can call CM Punk might a career midcarder all you like, but I bet he will probably main event Wrestlemania more than Andre in his career. You know, longevity and all.

Anyone that believes this is a legitimate possibility is either delusional or has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

LOL I NO U R BUT WUT AM I?

 

[klunderbunker]

He almost beat Hogan at Wrestlemania 3. But he didn't. A win is a win is a win, and he lost the match.

And come on KB, you know as well as I do that Andre didn't actually pin Hogan legitimately.

Punk didn't pin Cena legitimately. Your point?

No I was being serious, you actually watched the match and know that he didn't beat Hogan 1-2-3.

The referee counted three. The title changed. That's really all that matters.

Are...are you kidding me? Lot's of people beat Andre. And they certainly weren't called Steve Austin.

El Canek beat him, as did Antonio Inoki. The Ultimate Warrior for one DOMINATED Andre. More than once.

CM Punk has actually beaten the biggest superstar of his generation. 3 times.

And the biggest star of his generation would have been lucky to get an IC Title run in Andre's generation. See, you're stupid enough to think that title reigns now mean as much as title reigns back then. They were a little harder to come by back then. Also, the point of this is in their primes. The win Warrior had was when Andre was a shell of the shell that pinned Hogan.

Because Punk is REALLY that dumb, to go head to head in a straight up fight with Andre the Giant. Let me repeat: HE DOESN'T HAVE TO HURT ANDRE NECESSARILY TO WIN THE MATCH UP. CM Punk has proven time and time again to be incredibly intelligent, and wouldn't fight him straight up. He might get a few pot shots in with the legs, but my bet is he blindsides him and gets Andre's arms caught up in the ropes. This was a spot Andre LOVED to do (See Wrestlemania VI for just one example). While Andre is trapped, CM Punk climbs the ladder and wins.

See, this, AGAIN, is where you prove how stupid you are. Andre is just supposed to stand there and LET Punk do all this stuff to him? One thing about that arm trap spot: he'd get out of it and usually win afterwards.

Hogan in 1988 didn't lose. Hogan beat Andre lots of times. Stop using this inane comparison, when you know perfectly well Hogan along with a handful of others beat Andre.

Hogan comes into 1988 as champion. Hogan doesn't leave 1988 as champion. That would signal that he lost somewhere to me.

Also from what I can find, here are Hogan's wins/losses in singles matches against Andre in this period.

Win - WM 3
Loss - Main Event
Draw - Wrestlemania
Win - Wrestlefest

So Hogan is 2-1-1 against Andre. That's not lots of times bub.

You can call CM Punk might a career midcarder all you like, but I bet he will probably main event Wrestlemania more than Andre in his career. You know, longevity and all.

Yes, in an era with 4 "main events" at Wrestlemania, Punk has a total of zero matches going last at the biggest show of the year. Going on that logic, Andre has main evented two shows, because Hogan vs. Andre II was the main event of WM 4.

LOL I NO U R BUT WUT AM I?

In need of extreme therapy.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Punk didn't pin Cena legitimately. Your point?

He did though. Twice.

Once at Money in the Bank and once on Raw. And they were 3 counts.

The referee counted three. The title changed. That's really all that matters.

In that case, CM Punk made the Undertaker, one of the scariest most dominant wrestlers of our generation, tap out.

Of course, the bell rang before Undertaker actually submitted, but by your logic, CM Punk made him submit.

And the biggest star of his generation would have been lucky to get an IC Title run in Andre's generation.

Why is it his fault that there are more titles and more people on the roster these days? Yeah, if there are only 3 titles in the company, it'd probably shorten his odds.

See, you're stupid enough to think that title reigns now mean as much as title reigns back then. They were a little harder to come by back then.

I didn't say this at all. I realise fully that title reigns meant a lot more, but thanks for assuming my ignorance. Classy.

I just said that Andre never once legitimately won a world title. CM Punk has several times.

Also, the point of this is in their primes. The win Warrior had was when Andre was a shell of the shell that pinned Hogan.

Ah, the classic, 'Andre was out of his prime when he faced Warrior'. Seriously, how do we know that CM Punk has even reached his prime yet? He certainly doesn't think so, and he's already lauded as one of the best wrestlers in the world.

You can't give Andre the benefit of the doubt here anymore than Slyfox tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for being 0-0 in TLC matches.

See, this, AGAIN, is where you prove how stupid you are. Andre is just supposed to stand there and LET Punk do all this stuff to him?

And Punk is just supposed to stand there and let Andre do this stuff to him? Even though he's so much faster and so much more agile than Andre? CM Punk could just run around the ring until Andre makes a mistake.

One thing about that arm trap spot: he'd get out of it and usually win afterwards

Yeah, KB, arm trap spots operate a little bit differently in TLC matches, where you don't have to pin them. You just have to climb the ladder while he's tied up. I know you saw Wrestlemania X.

Hogan comes into 1988 as champion. Hogan doesn't leave 1988 as champion. That would signal that he lost somewhere to me.

Even though you clearly saw with your own eyes that he kicked out at 1 and a half?

I'll say it again, in that case, CM Punk made a man who has never tapped out submit to the Anaconda Vise. He's a beast.

Also from what I can find, here are Hogan's wins/losses in singles matches against Andre in this period.

Win - WM 3
Loss - Main Event
Draw - Wrestlemania
Win - Wrestlefest

So Hogan is 2-1-1 against Andre. That's not lots of times bub.

So we've established that other than from one illegitimate pin, Andre never beat Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania.

Thank you for that startling piece of evidence.

Why don't you tell me who Andre beat during this period that was as good and as big as Cena when Punk beat him?

Still waiting.

Yes, in an era with 4 "main events" at Wrestlemania, Punk has a total of zero matches going last at the biggest show of the year. Going on that logic, Andre has main evented two shows, because Hogan vs. Andre II was the main event of WM 4.

I suppose we'll have to wait until his career is over then?

Until then, all he has is those pesky 5 star matches to keep him company.

 

[cm ben]

LOL at all the rage in this thread. I think this'd be a close one. Andre seems to be the easy pick, but Punk is good at the kick n' run. He could wear Andre down, take him to a knee, then do his roundhouse kick.

That being said, Andre could do whatever the hell he wanted if Punk weren't fast enough.

Honestly, I haven't seen enough of Andre's matches to fairly decide. But, lately at least, Punk has definitely been used as one of these giant-killer types.

 

[klunderbunker]

He did though. Twice.

Once at Money in the Bank and once on Raw. And they were 3 counts.

So after interference counts as legit. Good. So the interference of the fake referee cheating counts too. Got it.

In that case, CM Punk made the Undertaker, one of the scariest most dominant wrestlers of our generation, tap out.

Of course, the bell rang before Undertaker actually submitted, but by your logic, CM Punk made him submit.

Yep, he did.

Why is it his fault that there are more titles and more people on the roster these days? Yeah, if there are only 3 titles in the company, it'd probably shorten his odds.

Good. So you agree that Andre's world title reign and tag title reign mean more. Now we're getting somewhere.

I didn't say this at all. I realise fully that title reigns meant a lot more, but thanks for assuming my ignorance. Classy.

I just said that Andre never once legitimately won a world title. CM Punk has several times.

Oh I'm not assuming it. You're certainly an idiot.

That being said, if we're counting legit title wins, then there hasn't been a legit heel champion in years. It's called cheating. Heels tend to do it.

Ah, the classic, 'Andre was out of his prime when he faced Warrior'. Seriously, how do we know that CM Punk has even reached his prime yet? He certainly doesn't think so, and he's already lauded as one of the best wrestlers in the world.

You can't give Andre the benefit of the doubt here anymore than Slyfox tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for being 0-0 in TLC matches.

I can take this two ways.

1. We also then can't assume that Punk won't dress up in a tutu and sing the Star Spangled Banner tomorrow night on Raw. It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. Must like Punk winning this match.

2. That's true. Andre never has won a TLC match and he's facing a guy with a whopping two matches worth of experience in a TLC match. The guy you're supporting went into one against a TLC master and won his first one, but we can't give him the benefit of the doubt, being a hall of famer and all.

And Punk is just supposed to stand there and let Andre do this stuff to him? Even though he's so much faster and so much more agile than Andre? CM Punk could just run around the ring until Andre makes a mistake.

Uh, I'm thinking if Punk is running around the ring, Andre will just climb up and win the match. Just a thought.

Yeah, KB, arm trap spots operate a little bit differently in TLC matches, where you don't have to pin them. You just have to climb the ladder while he's tied up. I know you saw Wrestlemania X.

Yes I did and there wasn't an arm trap spot. Learn your history if you're going to try to use it please.

Even though you clearly saw with your own eyes that he kicked out at 1 and a half?

Yeah, and I also saw Andre being handed the championship. I also saw Ace interfere in the MITB match, but that hurts your argument so you don't bring it up.

I'll say it again, in that case, CM Punk made a man who has never tapped out submit to the Anaconda Vise. He's a beast.

Yep. And submissions still have no bearing on this match.

So we've established that other than from one illegitimate pin, Andre never beat Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania.

One on one? No. But of course that's leaving out the biggest win of Andre's career because it wasn't "legit", in a sport based entirely on lies. Whatever.

Why don't you tell me who Andre beat during this period that was as good and as big as Cena when Punk beat him?

Well there was that Hogan guy. There was Bam Bam Bigelow at the Survivor Series which was a pinfall. I'm still trying to figure out why the Hogan win doesn't count but I'm sure you've failed to explain it more than once already.

I suppose we'll have to wait until his career is over then?

Until then, all he has is those pesky 5 star matches to keep him company.

Oh that's so cute. You think Meltzer's ratings mean jack.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Good. So you agree that Andre's world title reign and tag title reign mean more. Now we're getting somewhere.

No I don't. Because even if you were to count Andre's WWF Title reign, it went for about 45 seconds. Unimpressive.

I can take this two ways.

1. We also then can't assume that Punk won't dress up in a tutu and sing the Star Spangled Banner tomorrow night on Raw. It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. Must like Punk winning this match.

2. That's true. Andre never has won a TLC match and he's facing a guy with a whopping two matches worth of experience in a TLC match. The guy you're supporting went into one against a TLC master and won his first one, but we can't give him the benefit of the doubt, being a hall of famer and all

.

3 TLC Matches actually. And the guy you're proclaiming to be a 'TLC Master', Jeff Hardy, he never actually won a TLC match prior to facing CM Punk. Punk had beaten Chris Hero though....

Benefit of the doubt remains firmly with Punk in this stipulation.

Uh, I'm thinking if Punk is running around the ring, Andre will just climb up and win the match. Just a thought.

Then Punk climbs up the other side of the ladder four times faster than Andre and grabs the briefcase before Andre.

Yeah, I can do awesome hypotheticals too.

Yes I did and there wasn't an arm trap spot. Learn your history if you're going to try to use it please.

It was a similar concept, and you're just getting anal about the details because you have no argument. Fine HBK got his leg trapped. It wasn't his arms. But he was still trapped and it still cost him the match.

Andre got tied up in the ropes from a single kick from Haku (even though he had SUCH a strong chin right), and was only able to free himself thanks to Bobby Heenan being there to do it for him.

Yeah, and I also saw Andre being handed the championship. I also saw Ace interfere in the MITB match, but that hurts your argument so you don't bring it up.

The difference being, Ace interfering didn't have a direct outcome on the match. Cena distracted himself by shouting at Vince McMahon. He could have chosen to deal with Punk, but he didn't out of his own volition. He was subsequently GTS'd and pinned 1-2-3.

Hogan didn't distract himself, he just got screwed period. There was nothing he could do in his power, because the ref kept counting. It wasn't a three count. Period.

Yep. And submissions still have no bearing on this match.

But it shows Punk is capable of doing the unthinkable and the impossible.

One on one? No. But of course that's leaving out the biggest win of Andre's career because it wasn't "legit", in a sport based entirely on lies. Whatever.

If that's really the best you can do for his greatest ever triumph, a total screwjob and one of the most infamous dusty finishes of all time, and then argue it because WRESTLING IS FAKE DOOD: SPORT IS BASED ON LIES, then you've already lost this argument.

Well there was that Hogan guy. There was Bam Bam Bigelow at the Survivor Series which was a pinfall. I'm still trying to figure out why the Hogan win doesn't count but I'm sure you've failed to explain it more than once already.

I wouldn't define it as a win. I've stated my position, can we leave it now? You've already voted, as have I, this is just for funsies. CM Punk has beaten Big Show btw. That about equates to Bam Bam.

Oh that's so cute. You think Meltzer's ratings mean jack.

I don't know KB....You seemed to think it was pretty swell.

Rating: A+. Excellent match as I’m sure you got here as the whole thing came off as completely epic. Cena almost had to lose here due to the sake of his own safety. Vince screwing himself over is a great thing because that’s how it had to be. Great stuff here and the show ending with Punk being as popular as anyone imaginable is excellent. Awesome stuff here and an awesome show.

Rating: A+. It’s not as good as MITB but to call this less than a perfect grade would be unfair. They beat the tar out of each other and had some incredible chemistry as always. These two just have it and there’s no way to teach that. It worked perfectly and the whole thing was great. Cena was all over the place here, trying to prove how well he could work and that’s what he did here. Great match but great in a different way than last month, which is a good thing.

 

[klunderbunker]

No I don't. Because even if you were to count Andre's WWF Title reign, it went for about 45 seconds. Unimpressive.

We have exhibit B of you being an idiot.

Beating Hulk Hogan in 1988 in the most watched match in American history is impressive. Period.

3 TLC Matches actually. And the guy you're proclaiming to be a 'TLC Master', Jeff Hardy, he never actually won a TLC match prior to facing CM Punk. Punk had beaten Chris Hero though....

1. Summerslam vs. Hardy.
2. TLC vs. Del RIo and Miz.

Like I said: two TLC matches.

Benefit of the doubt remains firmly with Punk in this stipulation.

Then Punk climbs up the other side of the ladder four times faster than Andre and grabs the briefcase before Andre.

Yeah, I can do awesome hypotheticals too.

And Andre is just going to let him.

Dang you're an idiot.

It was a similar concept, and you're just getting anal about the details because you have no argument. Fine HBK got his leg trapped. It wasn't his arms. But he was still trapped and it still cost him the match.

Andre got tied up in the ropes from a single kick from Haku (even though he had SUCH a strong chin right), and was only able to free himself thanks to Bobby Heenan being there to do it for him.

No I'm getting anal about the details because you have no idea how big of an idiot you're being and it's hilarious to see you try to bring in history (like a match from over ten years ago with Hero as having a bearing on his prime) into this.

Seriously, you're an idiot. Seek help.

The difference being, Ace interfering didn't have a direct outcome on the match. Cena distracted himself by shouting at Vince McMahon. He could have chosen to deal with Punk, but he didn't out of his own volition. He was subsequently GTS'd and pinned 1-2-3.

Cena has Punk up for an AA.

Ace comes in.

Cena drops Punk.

Cena goes outside.

Cena comes back in and takes the GTS to lose.

That's not direct?

Hogan didn't distract himself, he just got screwed period. There was nothing he could do in his power, because the ref kept counting. It wasn't a three count. Period.

Except for the time when he went after Virgil instead of staying on Andre. What it was however was a three count and a new champion, but again, that doesn't count in your mind for whatever reason.

But it shows Punk is capable of doing the unthinkable and the impossible.

If it's impossible, it couldn't have happened. Try some English studies too.

If that's really the best you can do for his greatest ever triumph, a total screwjob and one of the most infamous dusty finishes of all time, and then argue it because WRESTLING IS FAKE DOOD: SPORT IS BASED ON LIES, then you've already lost this argument.

I'm arguing Andre the Giant would beat CM Punk and I'm losing. WOW.

What would his greatest accomplishment be then? This should be good.

I wouldn't define it as a win. I've stated my position, can we leave it now? You've already voted, as have I, this is just for funsies. CM Punk has beaten Big Show btw. That about equates to Bam Bam.

No, because you're an idiot and wrong. It was a win. WWE counts it as a win. Other sources count it as a win. But since it helps you, we can't, right?

I don't know KB....You seemed to think it was pretty swell.

That's so cute. You think my ratings mean anything either!

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

We have exhibit B of you being an idiot.

Beating Hulk Hogan in 1988 in the most watched match in American history is impressive. Period

I said his title reign wasn't impressive, not the impact of the win itself. We're still arguing kayfabe here are we not?

1. Summerslam vs. Hardy.
2. TLC vs. Del RIo and Miz.

Like I said: two TLC matches.

Benefit of the doubt remains firmly with Punk in this stipulation.

You agree with me here, let us never speak of it again.

And Andre is just going to let him.

Dang you're an idiot.

Uhh KB.

I was just doing a hypothetical to point out how ridiculous it is to guess whats going to happen in the match. It was a joke to show that you can endlessly counter whatever people argue. Well Wrestler A does this! But wrestler B would do this! And then wrestler A retaliates with this!

I think you may have missed the point though and just resorted to calling me an idiot....

No I'm getting anal about the details because you have no idea how big of an idiot you're being and it's hilarious to see you try to bring in history (like a match from over ten years ago with Hero as having a bearing on his prime) into this.

How silly of me, to base my argument on past history and match records. I should be basing it on how tall and powerful the guy is. Those should be my only arguments.

History matters. And Andre's history shows a penchant for getting caught in ropes. History has shown this helps win these kinds of stipulations. History matters.

Seriously, you're an idiot. Seek help.

Such an unnecessary comment. Whatever makes you feel big on the internet though, go for it.

Cena has Punk up for an AA.

Ace comes in.

Cena drops Punk.

Cena goes outside.

Cena comes back in and takes the GTS to lose.

That's not direct?

Cena unnecessarily went outside to confront McMahon. But even so, he had the opportunity to kick out.

Hogan never did. He kicked out and still lost.

Please stop arguing this point. I get it. You believe a win is a win and I do not. We're not going to convince each other.

If it's impossible, it couldn't have happened. Try some English studies too.

Again, being unnecessarily anal about hyperbole and turns of phrases because you have no argument against the point.

I'm arguing Andre the Giant would beat CM Punk and I'm losing. WOW.

What would his greatest accomplishment be then? This should be good.

Sorry, rephrase that? I geniunely didn't catch it. Punk's greatest achievement or Andre's?

That's so cute. You think my ratings mean anything either!

Punk puts on matches that lots of people enjoy and count as some of the greatest ever. That was the point.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I voted Punk.


Why? Because he has experience in a TLC match and has won his fair share. He is faster agile. I do not even wanna bring the argument of how a 5' 10 Akira Maeda almost kicked Andre into retirement, but there you go. Punk is faster, has more experience in these kinda matches. Thats it.


This will never be a squash by either of them. A tough, tough match but I see Punk's speed taking it. Punk will let Andre climb the ladder, viciously attack the man's leg with a chair till he himself tumbles down. Seeing a window of opportunity he will quickly ascend the ladder and get the title.

Agility, speed and anatomical dissection gives my vote to Punk.








And anyone using mic-skills as a factor in this Tourney needs help.

 

[The Gribbler]

I voted Punk because this match type really is an advantage for him. If punk can't beat Andre in this type of a match, then what match could he beat him in? I cannot think of a situation that better aids Punk in a match.

I am not saying its a blowout or anything, but seriously, the only thing that helps punk is access to weapons and something like a ladder stip to use against a slower opponent.

If he doesn't win here, he cannot win. Although that may have been a viable answer aswell...

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I made a few statements in favor of Punk earlier in this thread but I ended up voting for Andre here. Simply because I do not think that Punk has much up his sleeve to actually hurt Andre. The one chance that he does have is if Andre is on the ladder and Punk is able to dropkick it( which is perfectly possible), leading to a huge bump which Andre will not be able to recover from.

However, it is also possible that, at the start of the match, Andre just stands around at the centre of the ring under the briefcase and waits for Punk to attack. Punk's physical attacks themselves won't damage Andre much because Andre is much stronger. Punk will have to bring in the weapons from the outside which will only help Andre. If Andre grabs them from Punk, which he will, and hits him, then Punk will be severly hurt, so much so that I cannot imagine him being able to get up from those shots at all. After that, Andre can take his own sweet time climbing up the ladder. Seeing the kind of wrestler Andre is, I feel that he will only attempt to climb the ladder once he feels he has totally finished off his opponent. He knows he is much slower than Punk, so why the hell is he going to risk going after the briefcase if he feels that Punk has any chance of stopping him? I cannot really see Punk staging a miraculous recovery from Andre's offensive manouvres.

Winner: Andre.

 

[nightmare]

OK. Lets get a few things straight here.


Taker has only tapped to one man. His name is Kurt Angle. The Punk situation came after the bell from what I remember.


Interference is best defined as when wrestler A is attacked by wrestler B and usually thrown back in. That causes wrestler C to win by capitalizing on the his 'hurt' opponent. Punk vs Cena at RAW and MITB dont exactly count. At MITB Cena chose to leave and attack, climbed back in under his own 2 legs and got hit with a GTS. At RAW Cena was paying more attention to Truth in the crowd and Punk laid him out. Both cases wrestler A was never attacked. By that account someone blaring an airhorn, simply walking down the ramp or a chick flashing her tits in the crowd is considered interference. Not the same thing at all.



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.


-----

I dont see a single person here stating that:

A- Andre would stand there while Punk grabbed a weapon and hit him
or
B- Punk wouldnt get hit by Andre.


I highly doubt Andre would let Punk hit him. Thats not the case so quit playing stupid. We all know how that works. The heel plays dirty and sneaks in a shot. Hell, how about this. Andre puts Punk down and he slides in with a weapon and takes Andre out from behind while climbing the ladder. That has worked in every ladder match ever. Seems legit to me.


Punk will take his lumps. It will not be easy as none of his wins have been. Yet despite his beatings- he still won this type of match- multiple times against multiple opponents. MITB is the same damn concept as TLC or a ladder match. Beating one guy or 7 guys it doesnt matter. In fact I say its harder to win MITB because there are multiple guys trying to prevent you from winning at the same time.



Andre would chase Punk. I have never seen a wrestler say 'f this' and choose to climb as opposed to getting his hands on a guy. Why? Because in this match you have to keep the guy down or you will get tossed off the ladder. If Punk pisses Andre off he will go after him. We all know the 'run around the ring spot' where guy A chases guy B. It works and would be used here as well. Punk will and has used any type of trick to gain the advantage. No different here.


------

Back to the real point.

Match starts and both men do their respective tasks. Andre man-handles Punk- Punk then retaliates taking out his legs. Say Andre does get Punk down with a huge shot or big time move then goes for the ladder. What stops Punk from getting up and knocking Andre off the damn ladder? You know, the exact same spot that happens every time in a ladder match? What then do you have to say when Andre, not used to falling that far and has trouble getting up due to his legs being worked cant reach Punk in time? What about if he does and they are both atop the ladder and Punk kicks him in the fn head like he did to Kane at MITB? You know the match that Punk won by doing so....


So now we are left with Andre being 'immune' to offense argument. That is a cop out. Every man, including Andre has been rocked by great offensive moves. Kane, known for taking finishers and sitting up, known for being a tall ruthless giant- was knocked off the ladder by a half assed kick to the head. So now im suppost to forget RL history? In this type of envioronment? Against the man who has proved that he can win this?


Your winner- CM Punk.

 

[BK Styles]

My first instinct looking at this is Punk. I'm a Punk fan, never been interested in Andre the Giant, and Punk has more TLC/Ladder match experience, and a good number of important wins under his belt, AND he's proved he can hang with bigger guys. Punk is currently one of the top dogs and the current WWE champion, who is currently six days off a six month reign which, in today's day and age is very good going.

However, Andre is a freak of nature. Any match against him cannot be compared to a match with someone else. Big Show or Khali are the nearest comparisons, but they are very different competitors. Andre was huge (pun not entirely intended) back in his day. e back then; a man who the unstoppable Hulk Hogan struggled with. Punk would get some shots in with a chair, but Andre would bat most out of the way, swat Punk off the ladder, put him through a table outside the ring and climb the ladder. It'd be a hell of a match, and it wouldn't be easy, but Punk would need a hell of a lot to go in his favour, and I just feel this one would be too much for him.

Here's the thing. Punk could win. Of that I have no doubt. He's been champ for nearly six months, has beaten everyone put in front of him since the title win, and is damn good at what he does. But Andre the Giant, at the peak of his career physically, was a fucking monster. A monster, I believe, that Punk couldn't overcome.

As much as I hate to say it, my vote goes to Andre.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Wow, I have to say that I've been surprised several times during this year's tourney.

For one thing, I didn't expect Punk to make it this far. Not that he's not hugely talented, but I know how people love to vote for old school wrestlers in these things. I'm also surprised to see that Andre has had such a tough time this year. Usually, he wins most of his matches by a landslide but he's definitely struggled against Gagne in the last round and, as of right now, the vote is dead even 54 to 54.

This is one of these matches where I'm not sure about some things. On one hand, we all know how dominant Andre was back in his day, which can't be underestimated. On the other, it's foolish just to automatically write CM Punk off just because he's against Andre the Giant. Andre's size & strength are daunting challenges that simply might be too much for Punk. At the same time, Punk has the skill and toughness to hang in there with powerhouses and come out on top.

If Andre can keep Punk grounded and deliver some heavy impact offense to Punk, then I don't see him not being able to take this. If Punk can take Andre's legs out from under him, then this match is all but over as you can't climb a ladder if you can't stand up.

I'm tempted to vote for Andre, I have to admit, just because of who he is and how dominant he was back in his day. I know a lot of people are and I know a lot of people have probably voted for Andre because of that. I'm also tempted to vote for Punk because I know he's going to be heavily underestimated here and some have just automatically written him off. I'm also tempted because, personally, Punk is such a far superior pro wrestler overall and is far more enjoyable to watch & listen to.

If you go by accomplishments, Punk wins hands down. Despite Andre's dominance, he was never a dominant champion. He was never able to close the deal for one reason or another, his heavily tainted victory over Hulk Hogan notwithstanding. I'm leaning towards Punk but my mind can certainly be changed.

 

[Slyfox696]

Fact: Andre drank large amounts of alcohol so much because of his size, he would pass the fuck out. In RL.

Punk in kayfabe and RL never touched the stuff.

Even your "shitty" arguments are shitty. Andre was well known for being able to drink everyone in a bar under the table and still be good to go. I know you were just fooling around, but this is still a terrible argument, even moreso than you intended.

Here is a real one for ya....

Andre had shit legs. The man broke bones hopping out of bed in the morining. Sounds to me that his legs would be an issue. The weight alone from his massive frame broke his own bones by simply getting out of bed. What the hell do you think a chair would do? How do you not understand this yet?

You cannot be this stupid. No way any one person can be this stupid. How do you not understand the fact that as easily as you say Punk would take out Andre's legs, I can say Andre would never let Punk get close enough to his legs? There is ZERO proof for either side, thus debating some fantasy is ridiculous.

Never once did I say it would end his career. Now I do beleive it is enough to slow him down giving Punk the chance to climb. Being hurt, limping around on one good wheel is bad for Andre and good for Punk.

Slow him down enough to give Punk a chance to climb? Have you ever actually watched a TLC match? TLC competitors climb ladders one step every 30 seconds. You're being silly now.

You agree Andre is not crippled, so he can get up. When Punk climbs a ladder, one step every 30 seconds, Andre gets up and knocks him off. Then knocks him out.

See what I mean about fantasy booker?

By your logic we havent seen either man do either thing to eachother so it doesnt matter

EXACTLY. Now you're starting to get it.

because Andre is a bigger name and made more money as a draw.

And was bigger and stronger and more dominant.

Well by that logic Bill Gates could beat Steve Wozniak at basketball because he is a bigger name and made more money. See how that works? Dumb, right?

What does that have to do with pro wrestling? Yes, your statement was dumb, but because your example had nothing to do with what we are discussing. The end goals of basketball are entirely different from pro wrestling. It would be like comparing which of two movies were more successful at the box office, and saying Titanic was more successful because Windex leaves fewer streaks. They have nothing to do with each other.

In pro wrestling, the name of the game is about drawing money. Always has been, always will be. Using drawing power is a great argument, because it shows who the best workers are.

This is about who could win in the ring.

No it isn't. It's about who is the best pro wrestler. Different people choose to use different ways to evaluate that, but there has never been a hard and fast rule on how people have to vote.

Quit making up rules that don't exist.

Some choose to vote that way and its just silly.

And some try to create a fantasy scenario, and that's even more silly.

If it is about who is the bigger draw or more famous then why have a tournament at all? If we arent supposed to use past history, ability,match rules and what one could do to the other to determine the winner, then why not just crowd Hogan king of everything and be done with it?

Ignoring for a moment you misunderstand the drawing power argument, I cannot help but notice how you COMPLETELY ignored my point about the last time you saw someone hurt so bad in their leg they cannot stand up versus the last time you saw a one punch knockout. Does this mean you concede my one punch knockout scenario is much more common and much more plausible than your scenario?

I thought so. You were talking out of your rear end, and now you're beating the hasty retreat. The fact is arguing fantasy booking scenarios is ridiculous, especially when I can make up scenarios just as easy as you can. Thus, we have to be able to look at OBJECTIVE criteria, such as Andre's dominance, size, strength, win/loss record, drawing power, mainstream appeal, etc. to determine who deserves to advance.

That's the point, do you understand it now?

Wow, I have to say that I've been surprised several times during this year's tourney.

For one thing, I didn't expect Punk to make it this far. Not that he's not hugely talented, but I know how people love to vote for old school wrestlers in these things. I'm also surprised to see that Andre has had such a tough time this year. Usually, he wins most of his matches by a landslide but he's definitely struggled against Gagne in the last round and, as of right now, the vote is dead even 54 to 54.

Actually, old school wrestlers usually DON'T fare well in this tournament. Usually it's the newer wrestlers who do better.

I'm also tempted to vote for Punk because I know he's going to be heavily underestimated here and some have just automatically written him off.

In a match where the vote has been essentially tied the entire match long, do you really think it's right to vote because someone has been underestimated? It's hard to underestimate Punk when the vote is tied. You should vote for whomever you think deserves the vote, based on objective analysis of the two wrestlers.

I'm also tempted because, personally, Punk is such a far superior pro wrestler overall and is far more enjoyable to watch & listen to.

I would argue strongly against Punk being the "far superior pro wrestler".

If you go by accomplishments, Punk wins hands down. Despite Andre's dominance, he was never a dominant champion. He was never able to close the deal for one reason or another, his heavily tainted victory over Hulk Hogan notwithstanding.

You have to remember WHY Andre was never given a championship until late in his career. Promoters did not want to put the belt on Andre, because there was no way they could get it off. Andre was so dominant, promoters couldn't give him a title shot because he'd never lose the belt. To me, that's a FAR greater accomplishment than what Punk has done.

But it's not like Andre is without accomplishments. He is a former WWF champion (in the time where there was only one major title). He won the MSG League (1982) and IWGP Grand Prix (1985), which featured guys like Inoki, Rhodes, Fujinami, Choshu, El Canek, etc. Andre is a Hall of Famer, won TWO Match of the Year awards, and Feud of the Year, and won countless battle royals. So it's not like Andre's accomplishments are minor, especially for a guy who promoters wouldn't give a title shot.

 

[TheNickster]

Two things I'd just want to get at regarding Punk.

1) Punk may have experience in this match setting, but puh-leese. We've seen guys who have had 0 experience win TLC/Ladder Matches. Need an example? Kay.

Backlash 2009. John Cena defeats someone who has had the most experience in TLC/Ladder matches in the WWE. Edge.

So, even though Andre doesn't have the experience advantage, he could still come out on top.

2) I don't really think that Punk's 2 MITB wins would be great examples on why he'd win this. This is a one on one. MITB is 1 on 1 on 1 on 1 on 1 on 1 on 1 on 1. You've got other guys wearing down your opponents for you. But in this one on one match, it's just gonna be Punk and Andre.

Still gonna vote Andre.

 

[Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly]

CM Punk, even with the help of Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (OH MY!), couldn't take down Andre the Giant.
Though it would be funny as hell to watch Andre attempt to climb the ladder.
Nonetheless, vote for Andre. Just too much for Punk to handle.

 

[nightmare]

Using drawing power is a great argument, because it shows who the best workers are.

No it doesnt. If that was the case then Hardcore Holly, Dean Malenko, and friends would have huge drawing power. It is known by many fans and wrestlers that some of the best workers ever have never reached the main event status or drew big money. Drawing power does not equal who the best workers are.

You cannot be this stupid. No way any one person can be this stupid. How do you not understand the fact that as easily as you say Punk would take out Andre's legs, I can say Andre would never let Punk get close enough to his legs? There is ZERO proof for either side, thus debating some fantasy is ridiculous.

Yet here we are debating fantasy scenario's , in a fantasy tournament. We dont know either way what would really happen. Although, we may know that Andre was strong and a big draw- we also know he didnt like heights and had shit legs. We can only go on what we hear bc he is dead, but Ill take stories from his friends and bio info\match history over 'Slyfox said so'. He might very well hit Punk, but it is also very plausable Punk would take out his legs.


But as you 'say'... He wouldnt get the chance. I love how you and others make him out to be some indestructable mythical creature who wont get hit and can deflect any type of offense. Ignoring scenarios that have played out in every other ladder match as evidence, just because he hasnt participated in this match. Guess what, every other person never to be in a ladder match has came in and faced the same types of things. (legs being attacked to slow him down, and ladder being toppled) Your scenario hasnt been seen in this type of match, In fact Show is pretty good at your 'one punch KO' theory- yet never won a damn ladder match.

Slow him down enough to give Punk a chance to climb? Have you ever actually watched a TLC match? TLC competitors climb ladders one step every 30 seconds. You're being silly now.

Yet as slow as they climb from being exhausted- they still manage to win said match. Wow. You mean to tell me that you have never seen a guy (even slowly) climb to the top while his slower injured opponent wasnt able to get up? Still down from a move or attack? So... really? How about when a guy slowly climbs up and the slower guy (taller or not) meets him at the top of the ladder? I remember that one... Punk was upside down, Kane made Christian go splat and Punk kicked him in the head. Punk won. Thats not fantasy, it actually happened.

No it isn't. It's about who is the best pro wrestler. Different people choose to use different ways to evaluate that, but there has never been a hard and fast rule on how people have to vote.

Quit making up rules that don't exist.

Not making up any rules actually. Just following the rules set forth by the guys running the show.


If it isnt about who could win in the ring\match with a set of certain rules then why the hell is it structured that way? If mic skill, bank accounts and applause mean so much or carry more weight than ability to beat the guy in the ring- why not just show promo videos and compare bank accounts? Myself and quite a few others try to base this on ability to win because that makes sense. When people play tournaments in video games, they dont have promo wars or who wins by applause. They fight. You can factor in charisma, but you cant ignore the other points that make up ability to kick the other guys ass. (speed, strength, technical, submission, etc.) Vote how you wish, but comparing who can get more people to sit in an arena and clap seems silly.

Ignoring for a moment you misunderstand the drawing power argument, I cannot help but notice how you COMPLETELY ignored my point about the last time you saw someone hurt so bad in their leg they cannot stand up versus the last time you saw a one punch knockout. Does this mean you concede my one punch knockout scenario is much more common and much more plausible than your scenario?

I thought so. You were talking out of your rear end, and now you're beating the hasty retreat. The fact is arguing fantasy booking scenarios is ridiculous, especially when I can make up scenarios just as easy as you can. Thus, we have to be able to look at OBJECTIVE criteria, such as Andre's dominance, size, strength, win/loss record, drawing power, mainstream appeal, etc. to determine who deserves to advance.

That's the point, do you understand it now?

Alright Mister Misdirection. I understand the 'drawing power' argument. I just dont think it carries the same weight you do. If a guy can beat the other, putting butts in seats means jack shit. Kayfabe plays in to this as well and works both ways. You say Andre was booked to be dominant, well so is Punk. Both have been booked over the best in their time to benefit their career and make them look good. Both men. Andre over Hogan, Punk over Cena. Andre was dominant then with his run, and Punk is dominant now. A run like Punk is having is not easy to come by nowadays- just like Andre's wasnt easy to do back then.

The very strong, dominant and huge draw, John Cena (the man considered this era's Hogan) was beaten for the title by CM Punk.



Im not ignoring your 'KO' theory. Im just saying my theory has actually happened in ladder matches, whereas yours has not. In fact a guy very similar to Andre with his own KO power has never won this match. Despite his size, strength, agility and KO power. So you praise Andre for all those things and when I use that example- you choose to ignore all those same points you made in Andre's favor, and retort with 'Well Andre is a bigger draw than Show'. All those factors dont get you a win with this match. History has shown plenty of evidence to support that. The bigger guy loses in the majority of these matches. Fact. CM Punk has overcome those type of men in this type of match. Fact.



Punk has plenty ability to get the job done despite his lack of siz\strength\drawing power. It is not like I said he could bodyslam the guy. He is more than capable of winning this type of match, because he has proven to do so against all types of guys. Both could win, but Punk has proven he can.



Hasty retreat? Damn son, look around... Have I gone anywhere? I stand here unafraid of the great Slyfox when most would have ran away or never spoke up in your presence.

 

[IHW]

Despite Sly's amazing argument for Andre, I voted for Punk. Maybe it's the fact that the match, IMO, favors Punk. Maybe its Punk is my current favorite wrestler, and has been for 4 years. Or, it could be that I had nether of these guys moving on in my bracket. I just can't get the idea of Andre climbing a ladder and grasping the item hanging above the ring. I can't see guys like Khali or Show doing it, and they are closest to the size of The Giant. Punk has done it, many times. I'm just rambling because its tied up, and this written vote may count. Punk wins, after a valiant effort.

 

[Slyfox696]

No it doesnt. If that was the case then Hardcore Holly, Dean Malenko, and friends would have huge drawing power.

Except they weren't great pro wrestlers.

It is known by many fans and wrestlers that some of the best workers ever have never reached the main event status or drew big money. Drawing power does not equal who the best workers are.

Uhh, yes it does. You do realize what pro wrestling is all about, correct? So when you say "it is known by many fans...", what you REALLY mean is, "it is known by many IGNORANT fans"...

Yet here we are debating fantasy scenario's , in a fantasy tournament. We dont know either way what would really happen.

EXACTLY! That's what I've been trying to get you to realize. Finally you get it.

Now, let's see if we can take it a step further. If we don't know how the match would go, all we can do is analyze each man's strengths and weaknesses to determine who is more likely to win. And Andre clearly takes the cake in that area.

Although, we may know that Andre was strong and a big draw- we also know he didnt like heights and had shit legs.

Uhh..completely false.

We're not talking 1988 Andre, I thought that was made clear long ago. I posted a video in the second post of the thread which shows Andre jumping off the top rope. Your statement is completely and provably false.

but Ill take stories from his friends and bio info\match history over 'Slyfox said so'.

How about videos which prove your statements completely false? Will you accept that too?

Your scenario hasnt been seen in this type of match, In fact Show is pretty good at your 'one punch KO' theory- yet never won a damn ladder match.

A) I'm the one telling you that offering competing scenarios is a waste of time, and we should instead be focusing on each man's strengths and weaknesses.

B) Big Show is not Andre. The fact both Cena and Big Show have done it prove not only is it possible, it's entirely plausible.

Yet as slow as they climb from being exhausted- they still manage to win said match.

Uhh, not always. Many times the slow climbers lose. Have you never seen a TLC match before?

You mean to tell me that you have never seen a guy (even slowly) climb to the top while his slower injured opponent wasnt able to get up?

But you have already said Andre's legs weren't going to be hurt to the point where he can't get up. Thus, your statement here is invalid.

Not making up any rules actually. Just following the rules set forth by the guys running the show.

You mean...me?

While KB does the heavy lifting, I offer my advice on how the tournament should be run. So unless you're going to tell me I don't know what the tournament is about, I'm pretty certain you're wrong on this.

If it isnt about who could win in the ring\match with a set of certain rules then why the hell is it structured that way? If mic skill, bank accounts and applause mean so much or carry more weight than ability to beat the guy in the ring- why not just show promo videos and compare bank accounts?

Because they ALL matter and can all be used to determine the best worker. Like I said, different people use different ways to evaluate the best wrestler. It's not just about who would win in the ring.

Myself and quite a few others try to base this on ability to win because that makes sense.

Ability to win? What exactly does that mean in an entertainment medium where every result is scripted ahead of time?

When people play tournaments in video games, they dont have promo wars or who wins by applause.

And if video games had anything to do with pro wrestling, I might give a damn.

Vote how you wish, but comparing who can get more people to sit in an arena and clap seems silly.

Is this your first tournament?

Alright Mister Misdirection. I understand the 'drawing power' argument. I just dont think it carries the same weight you do. If a guy can beat the other, putting butts in seats means jack shit.

Let me try and give you the quick and dirty explanation.

1) Pro wrestling is scripted. Winners and losers are known before they ever come out from behind the curtain.

2) Pro wrestling companies want to make money.

3) Pro wrestlers are hired to make money

4) Wrestling fans will not pay money for guys who do not entertain them.

5) Wrestling fans aren't entertained by guys who lose all the time, wrestling fans want to see the best of the best (just like MMA fans, boxing fans, etc.)

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

7) If a guy draws money, he is booked to win.

8) If a guy consistently draws large numbers of fans and draws a lot of money, he's pushed into the main-event by winning matches

9) If he continues to draw lots of fans and money, he continues to win matches.



So, in other words, since Andre was a bigger draw than Punk, he'd be much more likely to win the match. As a fan, would you rather see CM Punk vs. the Rock or CM Punk vs. David Otunga? Which match gets your money? The Rock match, right? Same theory applies. Andre is the better draw, fans would be more likely to pay to see Andre in the next round match than they would Punk.

That's why drawing power matters.

Kayfabe plays in to this as well and works both ways. You say Andre was booked to be dominant, well so is Punk.

Punk has never been booked to be dominant. Not only did he get his ass kicked just last week, Punk has ALWAYS been a worker who takes a beating in the match. Punk's best wrestling attribute is his selling, Punk is very good selling his opponent's offense. His own offense is a little weak, so a lot of his matches focus on Punk taking the beating.

Andre was the complete opposite. Andre was far better at giving an ass kicking than taking one. Andre was booked to be dominant because of this, because kicking people's asses highlighted his strength and helped to hide his weaker side, just like Punk hides his by getting his ass kicked.

Punk is not booked to be dominant, he's NEVER been booked to be dominant. He might win matches, but he does not dominate matches. Brock Lesnar dominates matches. Steve Austin dominated matches. Andre the Giant dominated matches. HBK got his ass kicked. Mr. Perfect got his ass kicked. CM Punk gets his ass kicked.

Im not ignoring your 'KO' theory. Im just saying my theory has actually happened in ladder matches, whereas yours has not.

No it hasn't. I have never seen a ladder match where someone's legs have been worked over so much he cannot stand up. Please direct me to when that happened. Like I asked you to before.

you choose to ignore all those same points you made in Andre's favor, and retort with 'Well Andre is a bigger draw than Show'.

Uhh, no, I believe my retort has always been, "Big Show is not in the same league as Andre". Big difference.

History has shown plenty of evidence to support that.

I'm still waiting for you to provide an example.

The bigger guy loses in the majority of these matches. Fact.

Jeff Hardy has lost 42% of all TLC matches. I'm pretty certain the smaller guy loses in the majority of these matches. Hell, if I'm not mistaken, Kane won a Fatal Four Way tag team TLC match by himself. Edge is bigger than Flair. Cena is bigger than Edge. Punk is bigger than Hardy. Miz is bigger than Lawler.

So basically, I'm saying you're full of shit.

CM Punk has overcome those type of men in this type of match. Fact.

No he hasn't. Who has Punk overcome in a TLC match who was a Super Heavyweight working the Power Wrestler style. Who, who did he defeat in a TLC match like that?

You're full of shit again. Punk has beaten Hardy, Miz and Del Rio, and not one of those guys is a power wrestler. You don't know what you're talking about.

Both could win, but Punk has proven he can.

Because he's beaten guys who are nothing like Andre? How does that prove he can beat Andre? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been posted twice?

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=3899254&postcount=98

Pretty certain Punk has shown to have problems with guys of Andre's size.

I stand here unafraid of the great Slyfox when most would have ran away or never spoke up in your presence.

Add another dime to the collection. I wonder when I get the payout. It has to be reaching at least $10 now.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Just as one more point in Andre's favor in this type of match: his height gives him a big advantage in that he doesn't have to go nearly as high on the ladder He could probably reach the "item" from the 4th rung.

Please note this as a written vote for Andre the Giant.

 

[nightmare]

Except they weren't great pro wrestlers.

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.

Uhh, yes it does. You do realize what pro wrestling is all about, correct? So when you say "it is known by many fans...", what you REALLY mean is, "it is known by many IGNORANT fans"...

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.

Uhh..completely false.

We're not talking 1988 Andre, I thought that was made clear long ago. I posted a video in the second post of the thread which shows Andre jumping off the top rope. Your statement is completely and provably false.

So how often did he do that? Not often enough because people dont remember that he did. Must be a reason why it wasnt a staple in his arsenal. Maybe bc his legs or maybe his dislike for heights.....

HBK has a bad back, yet still does things that strain that part of the body. Austin has shit knees yet still we have seen spots where he takes damage to them. Wrestlers do things in the ring despite what nagging injuries they have. 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. Those things are also exploitable and why people focus on those injuries when attacking. Your shoulder hurts, i am going after that part- etc....

A) I'm the one telling you that offering competing scenarios is a waste of time, and we should instead be focusing on each man's strengths and weaknesses.

We are. Andre is strong\tall and Punk uses speed\tenacity to counter that with shots to the leg. 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. Never said otherwise.

B) Big Show is not Andre. The fact both Cena and Big Show have done it prove not only is it possible, it's entirely plausible.

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

Uhh, not always. Many times the slow climbers lose. Have you never seen a TLC match before?

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?

But you have already said Andre's legs weren't going to be hurt to the point where he can't get up. Thus, your statement here is invalid.

I agreed he wouldnt be crippled or have his career ended. Said shots to the leg will slow him down and the possibility of falling off the ladder would cause trouble for him to get up. 2 different things.

You mean...me?

While KB does the heavy lifting, I offer my advice on how the tournament should be run. So unless you're going to tell me I don't know what the tournament is about, I'm pretty certain you're wrong on this.

Never said that. Thanks for ignoring the point. 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. Dont give people the right to vote by criteria as they see fit and then disregard people if thier criteria doesnt fit yours. You think your criteria and procedure works and I think mine works. Obviously half of WZ thinks like you do and the other half of us just are 'dumb' by your logic.

Because they ALL matter and can all be used to determine the best worker. Like I said, different people use different ways to evaluate the best wrestler. It's not just about who would win in the ring.

If they all matter why do you dismiss the ones that dont work for you like revelant match history, relevant opponents (etc). I take in to account your criteria, 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.

Ability to win? What exactly does that mean in an entertainment medium where every result is scripted ahead of time?

Its still a competition. If you dont think the other guy stands a chance at winning then its not as exciting for fans. Otherwise we would just have no matches whatsoever and crown champions based on crowd reaction and what tshirt little jimmy is wearing this week. Vince chooses who he wants to represent him based on many factors, but if the guy doesnt look tough or shows he has the ability to beat the other guy- no one would care.

And if video games had anything to do with pro wrestling, I might give a damn.

They do and are structured based on ability, not so much on sales or attendance. 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. Merch sales dont cause match drama\ring ability. 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.

Is this your first tournament?

Nope. Did you get my christmas card? A thank you would have been nice....

Let me try and give you the quick and dirty explanation.

1) Pro wrestling is scripted. Winners and losers are known before they ever come out from behind the curtain.

WHAAAA? shocking news- do tell me more!

2) Pro wrestling companies want to make money.

Every business does.

3) Pro wrestlers are hired to make money

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

4) Wrestling fans will not pay money for guys who do not entertain them.

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"?

5) Wrestling fans aren't entertained by guys who lose all the time, wrestling fans want to see the best of the best (just like MMA fans, boxing fans, etc.)

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.

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

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

7) If a guy draws money, he is booked to win.

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

8) If a guy consistently draws large numbers of fans and draws a lot of money, he's pushed into the main-event by winning matches

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

9) If he continues to draw lots of fans and money, he continues to win matches.

Or unless he pisses off the boss, quits, gets injured; etc. But I see what your saying. It just doesnt apply to all wrestlers. How many kids love the hell out of Ryder, Santino, Big Show, Rey and others yet they have plenty of losses. 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.

So, in other words, since Andre was a bigger draw than Punk, he'd be much more likely to win the match. As a fan, would you rather see CM Punk vs. the Rock or CM Punk vs. David Otunga? Which match gets your money? The Rock match, right? Same theory applies. Andre is the better draw, fans would be more likely to pay to see Andre in the next round match than they would Punk.

Andre might have been back then, but in todays company Punk is. Infact, If Andre was around today, Im not so sure he would be as big of a draw. We will never know. We should dig him up and ask him. Now I would definately pay to see Zombie Andre vs CM Punk. Thats a money making match for sure.

That's why drawing power matters.

It sure does- thats why I wrote Sharpie and asked for an electric marker.

Punk has never been booked to be dominant. Not only did he get his ass kicked just last week, Punk has ALWAYS been a worker who takes a beating in the match. Punk's best wrestling attribute is his selling, Punk is very good selling his opponent's offense. His own offense is a little weak, so a lot of his matches focus on Punk taking the beating.

Andre was the complete opposite. Andre was far better at giving an ass kicking than taking one. Andre was booked to be dominant because of this, because kicking people's asses highlighted his strength and helped to hide his weaker side, just like Punk hides his by getting his ass kicked.

Yeah, I meant in regards to his win column growing- not necessarily physical dominance. My bad, wrong word choice. He still has had far better runs as champ than Andre had, regardless of his physical dominance.

Uhh, no, I believe my retort has always been, "Big Show is not in the same league as Andre". Big difference.

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.

I'm still waiting for you to provide an example.

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

Jeff Hardy has lost 42% of all TLC matches. I'm pretty certain the smaller guy loses in the majority of these matches. Hell, if I'm not mistaken, Kane won a Fatal Four Way tag team TLC match by himself. Edge is bigger than Flair. Cena is bigger than Edge. Punk is bigger than Hardy. Miz is bigger than Lawler.

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.

No he hasn't. Who has Punk overcome in a TLC match who was a Super Heavyweight working the Power Wrestler style. Who, who did he defeat in a TLC match like that?

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.

Add another dime to the collection. I wonder when I get the payout. It has to be reaching at least $10 now.

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

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Look I love Punk, the dude is my current favorite wrestler but Andre didn't lose to guys like Punk often, if ever. Punk hasn't exactly made a career out of being a giant killer either. The fact that it is a TLC match gives Punk some ground to stand on but Andre still takes it. Just give him a step ladder and let him take down whatever is hanging above the ring. Unless this match becomes a TLCS(Tables, Ladders, Chairs, and Snakes) match Andre is moving on