|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Sept 13, 2012 12:13:51 GMT -5
I'll never get over how much some people on the internet love to argue about who's the best at predetermined entertainment.
Once again.....what exactly is the rubric or criteria to determine who is the best? What exactly are we talking about being best at?
Best at performing the moves? Who has the most moves? Best talker? Most charismatic? Best look? Who drew/draws the the most money? Who has the most/sells the most merchandise? Most wins/titles? (all part of the script, btw)
Because let's face it, there's not a lot of guys who meet every one of those criteria I just listed, and I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of more factors to consider when thinking of what makes a successful and entertaining professional wrestler.
So really....until we determine what exactly it takes to be called the "best" and what exactly the hell each guy is best at....these threads are nothing more than people bitching about who their favorite wrestler is.
Bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by jammer311 on Sept 13, 2012 12:14:00 GMT -5
I am glad people finally see what I have been saying for a while on here!!
CM Punk is not good at all. His moves are sloppy most of the time, and that top rope elbow is the worse I have ever seen. You want to see a good top rope elbow drop then watch Survivor Series of last year and see Big Show do one. He did it perfectly.
I think why most people say that guys like CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the 'best' is because they are either ROH fans, or like most say, are sheep and follow the trend.
I have seen Bryan and Punk wrestle in ROH, and I find their matches to be boring.
I would gladly take Austin Aries as THE BEST wrestler in the world over Punk, Bryan or anyone for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by bababooey on Sept 13, 2012 12:16:55 GMT -5
The whole Best in the World thing reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry got his dad a shirt that said "#1 Dad" and it went straight to his head and he started a feud with Izzy Mandelbaum. The best line was when Jerry says "I don't know how official any of these rankings really are." This is a similar situation. So many people can claim to be the best.
Best in the World is an ROH PPV. I wonder if Punk started the Best in the World thing as an ROH shout out.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Sept 13, 2012 12:17:41 GMT -5
Hey, way to make a post about your completely subjective opinion and then pass it off as fact, as if people who don't share the opinion are in some way wrong? Cool fail. I think Austin Aries is the best in the world right now, but this thread is a ing joke.
|
|
JuiceWinslow
Main Eventer
Flair Country
Joined on: Sept 9, 2012 17:32:08 GMT -5
Posts: 2,706
|
Post by JuiceWinslow on Sept 13, 2012 12:17:43 GMT -5
All around, I think it's a toss up between Daniel Bryan and CM Punk. ...and CM Punk is the WWE Champion so I think he wins. By that logic, than John Cena wins because he has main evented every show this year except for Summer Slam. Cena is no where near as good a wrestler as either of those 2. Don't know where "by that logic" comes from...? I am no Cena-Hater, but I don't see how anyone could put him in the same category as a Daniel Bryan or a CM Punk when it comes to the over all package.
|
|
ohernan6
Main Eventer
'Cause That's How I Roll!
Joined on: Jan 20, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by ohernan6 on Sept 13, 2012 12:18:12 GMT -5
One way to think about it is if CM Punk really is the best, What does that say about the rest of the talent? I doubt CM Punk would be calling himself the best if he was in 2003's roster.
As far as a talker, though, he probably is the best of the full timers. HHH can be good, but only like twice a year. Same for John Cena.
As far as wrestling goes, I would say Christian, Mysterio, and a whole lot of the TNA roster is better than Punk.
|
|
ohernan6
Main Eventer
'Cause That's How I Roll!
Joined on: Jan 20, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by ohernan6 on Sept 13, 2012 12:21:54 GMT -5
I Frankly Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler I wouldn't even stop there. He's the all round better total package than Punk. He managed to get more over than Punk did in a quarter of the time. I disagree. Aside from a fun YES chant, I don't think Bryan has done anything amazing in the WWE yet. The only time I see awesome matches out of him are when he's fighting Punk. Other than that, especially lately, all I see is Leg Kick, Leg Kick, Leg Kick, Submission.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Sept 13, 2012 12:23:59 GMT -5
I'll never get over how much some people on the internet love to argue about who's the best at predetermined entertainment. Once again.....what exactly is the rubric or criteria to determine who is the best? What exactly are we talking about being best at? Best at performing the moves? Who has the most moves? Best talker? Most charismatic? Best look? Who drew/draws the the most money? Who has the most/sells the most merchandise? Most wins/titles? (all part of the script, btw) Because let's face it, there's not a lot of guys who meet every one of those criteria I just listed, and I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of more factors to consider when thinking of what makes a successful and entertaining professional wrestler. So really....until we determine what exactly it takes to be called the "best" and what exactly the hell each guy is best at....these threads are nothing more than people bitching about who their favorite wrestler is. Bottom line. obviously the best overall package, as we've already been discussing in this thread...
|
|
Spoder Juan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 18, 2011 21:36:12 GMT -5
Posts: 1,367
|
Post by Spoder Juan on Sept 13, 2012 12:25:36 GMT -5
Find it funny on how people call Punk generic when theres NEVER been a performer like him step in the ring.
I also find it funny how theres this legion of Punk haters because of a promo that Cena did. (If you didn't like Punk before then good job but im starting to notice a lot more since last RAW)
Moving forward, Just because people are huge fans of Punk and find him the most entertaining in the WWE today (myself included in that class) then it's us having an opinion and loving professional wrestling.
There isn't a written rule that everyone has to like the SAME wrestler, but the fact that someone calls the fans of a popular wrestler "sheep" is nothing more then bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by jade88 on Sept 13, 2012 12:30:33 GMT -5
CM Punk is really good but nothing special. His promos are pretty damn solid, but if he's not shooting they drop in quality at times. As a babyface he blows without shoot promos.
From a wrestling perspective there are so many guys better than him! Angle, Jericho, Orton, HHH, Aries, Joe, even Ziggler. From a pure wrestling standpoint, these guys have more wrestling ability.
I've always thought CM Punk was a damn good wrestler, but i fail to see where he's amazing or a top 10 guy. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart had better matches on bad nights.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Sept 13, 2012 12:34:38 GMT -5
I'll never get over how much some people on the internet love to argue about who's the best at predetermined entertainment. Once again.....what exactly is the rubric or criteria to determine who is the best? What exactly are we talking about being best at? Best at performing the moves? Who has the most moves? Best talker? Most charismatic? Best look? Who drew/draws the the most money? Who has the most/sells the most merchandise? Most wins/titles? (all part of the script, btw) Because let's face it, there's not a lot of guys who meet every one of those criteria I just listed, and I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of more factors to consider when thinking of what makes a successful and entertaining professional wrestler. So really....until we determine what exactly it takes to be called the "best" and what exactly the hell each guy is best at....these threads are nothing more than people bitching about who their favorite wrestler is. Bottom line. obviously the best overall package, as we've already been discussing in this thread... It's all still so subjective. What entertains one person might not entertain another. Some people are more entertained by a match where somebody pummels a guy with 83 chair shots than a technical match. Some people like a promo where the guy just yells swear words instead of making well articulated points that advance a storyline. Some people think anything with blood becomes a Match of the Year candidate automatically. I'm just saying, most of the time these threads turn into people trying to force other people to be entertained by what THEY like instead of just accepting the fact that every person is different and we all have the right to be entertained by what personally entertains us. Quite frankly, I'd rather watch Tajiri vs. Little Guido vs. Super Crazy in an International 3-Way Dance from the Original ECW over anything WWE has done in the last 12 years...but I'm not trying to tell anybody their favorite wrestlers sucks either.
|
|
|
Post by jade88 on Sept 13, 2012 12:39:33 GMT -5
I'll never get over how much some people on the internet love to argue about who's the best at predetermined entertainment. Once again.....what exactly is the rubric or criteria to determine who is the best? What exactly are we talking about being best at? Best at performing the moves? Who has the most moves? Best talker? Most charismatic? Best look? Who drew/draws the the most money? Who has the most/sells the most merchandise? Most wins/titles? (all part of the script, btw) Because let's face it, there's not a lot of guys who meet every one of those criteria I just listed, and I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of more factors to consider when thinking of what makes a successful and entertaining professional wrestler. So really....until we determine what exactly it takes to be called the "best" and what exactly the hell each guy is best at....these threads are nothing more than people bitching about who their favorite wrestler is. Bottom line. obviously the best overall package, as we've already been discussing in this thread... Best overallpackage? Fair but they removes Punk from the running. There are guys who draw more $$$$ Guys who possess a better look. More refined/polished wrestlers Promos are really the only area where he stands a chance at winning out everybody in wrestling. A guy who was a great overall package is Ric Flair and i'm not even a Flair guy. But what he was in the 80s was what a wrestler would need to be before he should proclaiming to be the best. There you go, Ric Flair is the measuring stick.
|
|
|
Post by kazoosandstreamers on Sept 13, 2012 12:41:59 GMT -5
I am glad people finally see what I have been saying for a while on here!! CM Punk is not good at all. His moves are sloppy most of the time, and that top rope elbow is the worse I have ever seen. You want to see a good top rope elbow drop then watch Survivor Series of last year and see Big Show do one. He did it perfectly. I think why most people say that guys like CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the 'best' is because they are either ROH fans, or like most say, are sheep and follow the trend. I have seen Bryan and Punk wrestle in ROH, and I find their matches to be boring. I would gladly take Austin Aries as THE BEST wrestler in the world over Punk, Bryan or anyone for that matter. You are an Aries fan? Dude, you are such a sheep.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Sept 13, 2012 12:42:37 GMT -5
by a list of certain credentials, it can be decided who for all reasons is the best round package.
yes, opinion gets in it, and makes things sticky. but fact over rules. for example, you could enjoy tajiri's promos more than cm punk. in your opinion, tajiri cuts the better promos. however, by collective logic it can be affirmatively concluded that cm punk has quite the social skills and is, overall, the BETTER talker between the two. he is closer to the bullseye of wrestling expectations.
it's just like music or anything else. you can think that your favourite band is the best band in the world, or you can be an intelligent human being who is aware enough to acknowledge their true standings in the test of time.
i love thrice, they are no pink floyd. that doesn't make pink floyd 'better' than thrice, as they're two different things, but overall floyd had a grander aim, product, and impact on music overall. it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. therefore, you could call pink floyd 'greater' than thrice, but some might not find them 'better'.
|
|
|
Post by nexusagainstus on Sept 13, 2012 12:45:03 GMT -5
I love how people took what I said out of context. I never said if you liked Punl that you were a sheep. I love the man. I said if you actually buy into his best in the world claim than yes, you are a mindless sheep.
|
|
|
Post by jammer311 on Sept 13, 2012 12:45:14 GMT -5
I don't get how people can say CM Punk is the best talker.
Last year this time, his thing was going out and saying "so and so got released" *gets pop from the crowd* and he called that a 'pipe bomb'
He's overrated.
He's not the worse guy on the roster, but he's not the best either.
|
|
|
Post by jade88 on Sept 13, 2012 12:47:08 GMT -5
by a list of certain credentials, it can be decided who for all reasons is the best round package. yes, opinion gets in it, and makes things sticky. but fact over rules. for example, you could enjoy tajiri's promos more than cm punk. in your opinion, tajiri cuts the better promos. however, by collective logic it can be affirmatively concluded that cm punk has quite the social skills and is, overall, the BETTER talker between the two. he is closer to the bullseye of wrestling expectations. it's just like music or anything else. you can think that your favourite band is the best band in the world, or you can be an intelligent human being who is aware enough to acknowledge their true standings in the test of time. i love thrice, they are no pink floyd. that doesn't make pink floyd 'better' than thrice, as they're two different things, but overall floyd had a grander aim, product, and impact on music overall. it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. therefore, you could call pink floyd 'greater' than thrice, but some might not find them 'better'. Why should anybody give a damn what middle America thinks? I hate mass opinion, most of their opinions are forcefed tbh. No way i ever state that Aerosmith was a better band than the Ramones because most of a dumbed down society thinks so. Not that Aerosmith isn't cool, just using an example. My point is, popular opinion is silly. Talent is talent clear as day.
|
|
|
Post by nexusagainstus on Sept 13, 2012 12:49:27 GMT -5
by a list of certain credentials, it can be decided who for all reasons is the best round package. yes, opinion gets in it, and makes things sticky. but fact over rules. for example, you could enjoy tajiri's promos more than cm punk. in your opinion, tajiri cuts the better promos. however, by collective logic it can be affirmatively concluded that cm punk has quite the social skills and is, overall, the BETTER talker between the two. he is closer to the bullseye of wrestling expectations. it's just like music or anything else. you can think that your favourite band is the best band in the world, or you can be an intelligent human being who is aware enough to acknowledge their true standings in the test of time. i love thrice, they are no pink floyd. that doesn't make pink floyd 'better' than thrice, as they're two different things, but overall floyd had a grander aim, product, and impact on music overall. it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. therefore, you could call pink floyd 'greater' than thrice, but some might not find them 'better'. Why should anybody give a damn what middle America thinks? I hate mass opinion, most of their opinions are forcefed tbh. No way i ever state that Aerosmith was a better band than the Ramones because most of a dumbed down society thinks so. Not that Aerosmith isn't cool, just using an example. My point is, popular opinion is silly. Talent is talent clear as day. Someone who isn't a sheep. I applaud you.
|
|
|
Post by irreversible on Sept 13, 2012 12:54:02 GMT -5
Danielson is superior to punk in every possible way. I've hated CM Punk for so many years as a wrestling fan, I don't even enjoy it anymore. I wish he'd just go away. He's always seemed incredibly fake/forced with the whole straightedge gimmick. Not to mention "straight edge" already annoys the out of me in every day life. His wrestling, I believe was never all that great. YES. I've ing seen him in the indies, shut up. Incredibly overrated from his early days in ROH, and COSMICALLY overrated now. I'll admit the pipe bomb moment was awesome, as it freshened the product up, but it still felt incredibly forced, just because it was Punk. Bryan, however seems like a guy who is naturally charismatic out in the streets in everyday life. His ring skills are unmatchable these days, his promo work has improved 10 fold in the last year. I'd love to hear a debate on who is better at the moment. Honestly.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Sept 13, 2012 12:57:29 GMT -5
Why should anybody give a damn what middle America thinks? I hate mass opinion, most of their opinions are forcefed tbh. No way i ever state that Aerosmith was a better band than the Ramones because most of a dumbed down society thinks so. Not that Aerosmith isn't cool, just using an example. My point is, popular opinion is silly. Talent is talent clear as day. you completely missed my point. i'm not saying that you go with the masses or the majority, i'm saying when you actually put the two bands up to the light what did they do? how are they relevant to progression in what they do? pink floyd's the wall is an amazing piece of work. it stands the test of time. rather you like the wall or not, it is one of the GREATEST albums ever without question. the amount of conceptualization, progression in music, and breaking boundaries speaks for itself and puts pink floyd in line with the musical 'greats', at least in rock n roll. this is indisputable. you can like or dislike pink floyd, but they're ing pink floyd. i'd relate say, ric flair, to this position in wrestling. get it now?
|
|