The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[kingbeavis]

Yes there is. Punk vs. Taker done cold does nothing to move any storylines any further.

Something like a Punk/Lesnar vs Undertaker/HHH might have, where you could set up a Punk/Lesnar feud by using it to show who's side Paul E and The Shield are really on.

On the other side. Having Vince have to call in Taker to deal with Leanar, and being forced to give Taker the right to name his opponent for WM XXX in exchange for his participation.

How did 6 weeks of a build to a match become not enough? How often are WM matches, outside of the main event, built with a months long feud? I think it is irrational to expect every match to have a similar build as Rock/Cena.

Is this just "CM Punk is my favorite so he should have the bestest spot on the card every time ever"?

[Lord Simian]

Then he's not a credible heel.

Then, by your logic, there has only ever been two credible heels in the history of wrestling: the McMahon/Helmsley era, when they ran the show and destroyed anyone in their path... And the NWO, who did the same.

For example, Ted Dibiase? Totally not a credible heel, as his plan to buy the championship was foiled. Roddy Piper? Failed to take Hogan's belt OR end Pauper's music career. Utter failure as a heel. The Undertaker? Planned to destroy Hulkamania once and for all, but lost at Tuesday In Texas. Utter waste. And on and on....

[Punchy]

Then he's not a credible heel.

He seems to be getting plenty of boos.

[Juan Cena]

Then, by your logic, there has only ever been two credible heels in the history of wrestling: the McMahon/Helmsley era, when they ran the show and destroyed anyone in their path... And the NWO, who did the same.

For example, Ted Dibiase? Totally not a credible heel, as his plan to buy the championship was foiled. Roddy Piper? Failed to take Hogan's belt OR end Pauper's music career. Utter failure as a heel. The Undertaker? Planned to destroy Hulkamania once and for all, but lost at Tuesday In Texas. Utter waste. And on and on....

DiBiase? He never really accomplished anything beyond winning the Tag Team belts with IRS. Piper? More comedian than credible threat. Undertaker? Became a face a few months after the incident you mentioned.

I'm talking Ric Flair level c. 1985-1988 level here. He dominated the NWA/WCW with the Four Horsemen with only a couple of brief periods where he didn't have the World Heavyweight Championship.

[Punchy]

DiBiase? He never really accomplished anything beyond winning the Tag Team belts with IRS. Piper? More comedian than credible threat. Undertaker? Became a face a few months after the incident you mentioned.

I'm talking Ric Flair level c. 1985-1988 level here. He dominated the NWA/WCW with the Four Horsemen with only a couple of brief periods where he didn't have the World Heavyweight Championship.

But isn't that historically the difference between WWE and WCW? In WWE, the faces were dominant, whereas in WCW it was the heels.

Punk is probably the biggest heel in wrestling today, it's him or Brock Lesnar really.

[syxxpakk]

Yes there is. Punk vs. Taker done cold does nothing to move any storylines any further.

You literally cannot say that because you don't know what the storyline is, how it will play out, etc. You're doing your assumptions again.

[syxxpakk]

I don't call being the third match of the card "stealing the spotlight.

I think Punk will, since he's most likely wrestling the Undertaker who has delivered what are almost unanimously agreed to be the four best matches of the last four WrestleManias.

[syxxpakk]

He held the WWE Championship for over a year, how is that not winning more than he lost? And every match he has lost in the last few months (except last night's) was the result of shenanigans.

You're overreacting, Punk is still a top guy.

And will REMAIN a top guy. Batista lost to the Undertaker at WM23. He was STILL a top guy after it.

[Bianco]

Real nice of HHH taking his time to make the save.

he might have been trying to remove that wet spot i talked about earlier, so I can't blame him

[syxxpakk]

Yes, this is it literally. And I think it's where I have the most trouble understanding, TBH.

I've never made any bones about it: Bryan Danielson is my absolute favorite wrestler. Whether he's a smarmy and sneaky heel or a plucky babyface, I've always thought he was great. So by rights, I more than anyone should have more to complain about regarding his 18-second loss last year. And what did I say at the time?

"I would have liked to have seen the match, and I'll most likely get that opportunity at Extreme Rules or on free TV, but a way to tell the story - this was pretty great."

I mean, it's all fake. Punk's not really going to fight the Undertaker, so the Undertaker isn't really going to beat him up. And if you're genuinely worried that it will harm him - I can assure you more than anything else I have ever said will happen, including me saying since last summer it would be the Rock vs. Cena II at WMNYNJ, Punk will not be harmed in the slightest from this.

[syxxpakk]

DiBiase? He never really accomplished anything beyond winning the Tag Team belts with IRS. Piper? More comedian than credible threat. Undertaker? Became a face a few months after the incident you mentioned.

I'm talking Ric Flair level c. 1985-1988 level here. He dominated the NWA/WCW with the Four Horsemen with only a couple of brief periods where he didn't have the World Heavyweight Championship.

If you want the company that went out of business, download some torrents. WWF has ALWAYS been about the supermegababyface since Vince took over (and really before that with Sammartino, Morales, and Backlund).

[Bianco]

How many times has a match on the under card stole the show at WM, personally I always watch WM for the under card and can care less about the "main events".


like i said if punk takes on taker and wins, it will be right back fighting Cena for the belt, or if he loses he takes some time off and probably turns face against Lesner at Summer Slam

[misac]

Yes, this is it literally. And I think it's where I have the most trouble understanding, TBH.

I've never made any bones about it: Bryan Danielson is my absolute favorite wrestler. Whether he's a smarmy and sneaky heel or a plucky babyface, I've always thought he was great. So by rights, I more than anyone should have more to complain about regarding his 18-second loss last year. And what did I say at the time?

"I would have liked to have seen the match, and I'll most likely get that opportunity at Extreme Rules or on free TV, but a way to tell the story - this was pretty great."

I mean, it's all fake. Punk's not really going to fight the Undertaker, so the Undertaker isn't really going to beat him up. And if you're genuinely worried that it will harm him - I can assure you more than anything else I have ever said will happen, including me saying since last summer it would be the Rock vs. Cena II at WMNYNJ, Punk will not be harmed in the slightest from this.

And looking back, that super lame loss is what endeared him to lots of people and started the “yes” craze.

[misac]

I've tapped out on the Punk conversation. Clearly his career is doomed and he’ll be future endeavored by Summer Slam.

[Juan Cena]

You literally cannot say that because you don't know what the storyline is, how it will play out, etc. You're doing your assumptions again.

Punk will challenge Taker (or vice versa). Taker will play some little mind games with Punk over the next few week. Then he'll beat Punk at WM, then go away for a year.

I don't call that much of a storyline. It's more of a wham-bam, kind of thing. It'll serve to keep Taker's streak going until next year, and lower Punk's credibility as being a dominant force in the WWE and a serious threat to the title. You just can't do that losing three PPV's in a row.