|
Post by philly boi on Apr 4, 2014 7:02:52 GMT -5
I knew somebody would reply to me saying that, like clockwork. Sorry, every single one of those guys had their faults and hiccups. Stuttering, over-used catchphrases, unintelligible vocals and accents, all of them had their faults. During Punks prime (2010-mid 2013) he was arguably the hottest guy on the microphone ever, he could control an entire segment and make you believe what he was saying (even if they were lies) without stuttering and corny catch phrases, along with a clear paced voice and accent. Faults and hiccups? Not sure which promos you're watching. All guys stumble over their words every so often, especially when most of what they're saying isn't memorized from a script... I'm not putting Punk down, he's amazing. But to say he's the best of all time? Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, I've never found his delivery to be anything special. What he says is usually terrific, but if you weren't sitting down and listening to the words he was saying, you probably wouldn't turn your head to see who was talking. 9:45 to 11:20 still gives me chills.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Apr 4, 2014 7:32:24 GMT -5
Mic work isn't everything. Yes, Bryan is not as good as Punk in department, but to be fair, most current stars aren't. However, in every other aspect of wrestling, Bryan > Punk. I've been saying this forever and my brother won't hear a word of it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 8:43:50 GMT -5
Punk is better than Daniel Bryan on all accounts in my opinion . . . Daniel Bryan has done an amazing job of taking control of a true "movement" and capitalizing on it's momemtum. As far as abilities go between the two of them, It will always be Punk 1. Bryan 2.
|
|
WWE4Life!
Superstar
Joined on: Jan 14, 2003 9:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 600
|
Post by WWE4Life! on Apr 4, 2014 8:52:59 GMT -5
I think Daniel Bryan seems like a more likable guy than Punk. Punk has a more polarizing personality that doesn't sit well with the masses. For a WWE superstar to make a great impact, all fans have to get on board, not just the diehards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 9:00:32 GMT -5
Lately Punk hadn't been that great on the mic either.......bitching and being snarky about everything gets old after awhile....
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 9:35:20 GMT -5
I always thought that ol' Philly Brooks would go down as the most impactful WWE talent to have had a notable background in the humble indies (ROH, IWA: Mid-South, etc.) and to have not had a body, etc., especially after mid-2011. However, it looks like with pop culture acknowledgement, sporting event chants, and even Rolling Stone Magazine publishing an article about him, Daniel Bryan has surpassed CM Punk in fame. And why? They're equally great in the ring, the Yes! chant is great, and I love the romantic movement that led to WWE changing the WMXXX plans (assuming they didn't have a master plan to begin with) to put him over in the main event (which we all know is happening). That said, even while giving credit to him for all of the positives, I don't see the microphone talent within Bryan that I see in Punk. Not even a quarter of it. Bryan isn't that great on the mic. He seems timid. As I've said, I think Bryan is undoubtedly deserving of what awaits him in New Orleans Sunday night. At the same time, I wish people would acknowledge his negatives. He's not a Punk on the mic. Not a Foley, not a Flair, not an Austin, not a Trip. I think Punk should go down as the overall better "Fruit of the Tree of ROH" as he compares to Bryan.Punk has done a lot to undermine his legacy by throwing temper-tantrums like a spoiled child. That's one of the major reasons he doesn't stack up to Bryan. Bryan genuinely loves the business and it shows. Punk is not equal to Bryan in the ring. He's no where close. Several of Punk's spots (the diving elbow, the head kick) looked sloppy. Punk is not one of those guys who can have a great match with anyone (as much as he thinks he is). He had a pretty terrible match with Seth Rollins on Raw a couple of months ago and Rollins is really good. He's had other matches that aren't up to par as well. As far as his mic skills, Punk is better than Bryan. I still think Punk is a little overrated in that area too though. He had one amazing promo and tons of good to decent promos. He is certainly above average, but he's not someone who I would count on to constantly deliver like Rock, Austin or Flair. As far as the guys you named at the end, Punk is certainly not Austin or Flair. He can't touch either of them in the ring or on the mic. Triple H is better than him in ring, but below Punk on the mic while Foley is better on the mic, but worse in ring. I think Punk stacks up pretty well overall. He is always going to be a number 2 guy though. He isn't Hogan, he's Savage. He isn't Flair, he's Dusty. He isn't Austin, he's Triple H. There's nothing wrong with that. All of those guys were great. One of Punk's major problems is he blossomed in the Cena era. Cena is Hogan. Cena is Flair. Cena is Austin. Everyone else on the roster (including Punk) is second fiddle. Bryan has the potential to be the next big thing. Only time will tell, but he is on the verge of greatness.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 9:36:29 GMT -5
Punk > Bryan, personally.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 9:36:41 GMT -5
Far better in-ring worker, can connect with the crowd on a level that Punk isn't capable of doing, doesn't treat fans like they're beneath him, grateful for everything he has. I see no way Bryan isn't better than Punk and I've felt that way for years.
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Apr 4, 2014 11:05:24 GMT -5
I swear, if I hear one more person say Bryan is bad on the mic I'm going to freaking scream. Sure, he hasn't had a "pipebomb" promo, but he is still way above average mic wise. In ROH when he did his own promos they were AMAZING. His promos against The Authority have been great too. Punks best promos were great, sure. But they were mostly great because they were edgy. When Punk isn't being edgy and even sometimes even when they are edgy they aren't great sometimes. 2013 proved that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 11:15:00 GMT -5
They're both great. I like them both.
They are two very different people yet both are very entertaining in their own ways.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 11:20:11 GMT -5
They're both great. I like them both. They are two very different people yet both are very entertaining in their own ways. Nicely put.
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Apr 4, 2014 11:20:45 GMT -5
Bryan will never be bigger or better than Punk, as far as I'm concerned, because he just doesn't have the presence that Punk has. As a persona, Bryan is rather forgettable. He simply can't provide what Punk can, by which I mean can't provide the captivating television that Punk can. When Punk steps through the curtain, you know something special could be about to happen, you know he's arrived - I just don't get that feeling with Bryan. When he's on, Punk owns that screen, he commands your attention. When Punk appears, it's usuallly must-see television - he leaves a mark... whereas it's just not the same with Bryan - there's really nothing "must-see" about Bryan, IYAM. I always thought that ol' Philly Brooks would go down as the most impactful WWE talent to have had a notable background in the humble indies (ROH, IWA: Mid-South, etc.) and to have not had a body, etc., especially after mid-2011. However, it looks like with pop culture acknowledgement, sporting event chants, and even Rolling Stone Magazine publishing an article about him, Daniel Bryan has surpassed CM Punk in fame. And why? They're equally great in the ring, the Yes! chant is great, and I love the romantic movement that led to WWE changing the WMXXX plans (assuming they didn't have a master plan to begin with) to put him over in the main event (which we all know is happening). That said, even while giving credit to him for all of the positives, I don't see the microphone talent within Bryan that I see in Punk. Not even a quarter of it. Bryan isn't that great on the mic. He seems timid. As I've said, I think Bryan is undoubtedly deserving of what awaits him in New Orleans Sunday night. At the same time, I wish people would acknowledge his negatives. He's not a Punk on the mic. Not a Foley, not a Flair, not an Austin, not a Trip. I think Punk should go down as the overall better "Fruit of the Tree of ROH" as he compares to Bryan. Punk has done a lot to undermine his legacy by throwing temper-tantrums like a spoiled child. That's one of the major reasons he doesn't stack up to Bryan. Bryan genuinely loves the business and it shows. Punk is not equal to Bryan in the ring. He's no where close. Several of Punk's spots (the diving elbow, the head kick) looked sloppy. Punk is not one of those guys who can have a great match with anyone (as much as he thinks he is). He had a pretty terrible match with Seth Rollins on Raw a couple of months ago and Rollins is really good. He's had other matches that aren't up to par as well. As far as his mic skills, Punk is better than Bryan. I still think Punk is a little overrated in that area too though. He had one amazing promo and tons of good to decent promos. He is certainly above average, but he's not someone who I would count on to constantly deliver like Rock, Austin or Flair. As far as the guys you named at the end, Punk is certainly not Austin or Flair. He can't touch either of them in the ring or on the mic. Triple H is better than him in ring, but below Punk on the mic while Foley is better on the mic, but worse in ring. I think Punk stacks up pretty well overall. He is always going to be a number 2 guy though. He isn't Hogan, he's Savage. He isn't Flair, he's Dusty. He isn't Austin, he's Triple H. There's nothing wrong with that. All of those guys were great. One of Punk's major problems is he blossomed in the Cena era. Cena is Hogan. Cena is Flair. Cena is Austin. Everyone else on the roster (including Punk) is second fiddle. Bryan has the potential to be the next big thing. Only time will tell, but he is on the verge of greatness. So Bryan loves the business, but 'cos Punk has been fustrated with how he's booked, and is burnt out, all of a sudden, it means he's never cared for a business, he's dedicated over half his life to? Give over. Punk throws these so-called "temper-tantrums, BECAUSE he loves what he does. How is it possible for someone to be so wrong, so many times in one post? The only reason Punk's performance in the ring has been a bit off, as of late and his matches not up to their usual standard of greatness, is because - unlike Bryan, he's been working through a litany of injuries. As for the rest of your post... Punk can't touch Austin or Flair in the ring, or on the mic? HHH a better ring worker than Punk?... Don't make me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Apr 4, 2014 11:43:55 GMT -5
I like both Daniel Bryan and CM Punk, but Bryan just seems to be a good guy while Punk gives off that vibe that he's a prick outside the ring. Now the one thing I lost respect for with Punk was not that he left. It was that he left before his contract ran out. In my opinion, if Punk wanted to leave or take time off, he should have left when his contract expired, or ask for time off after Mania. The way Punk left was very disrespectful to the company and to the fans that paid to him. That's just my view on the both of them. I hope Bryan does get that Wrestlemania moment this Sunday.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 12:05:01 GMT -5
I always thought that ol' Philly Brooks would go down as the most impactful WWE talent to have had a notable background in the humble indies (ROH, IWA: Mid-South, etc.) and to have not had a body, etc., especially after mid-2011. However, it looks like with pop culture acknowledgement, sporting event chants, and even Rolling Stone Magazine publishing an article about him, Daniel Bryan has surpassed CM Punk in fame. And why? They're equally great in the ring, the Yes! chant is great, and I love the romantic movement that led to WWE changing the WMXXX plans (assuming they didn't have a master plan to begin with) to put him over in the main event (which we all know is happening). That said, even while giving credit to him for all of the positives, I don't see the microphone talent within Bryan that I see in Punk. Not even a quarter of it. Bryan isn't that great on the mic. He seems timid. As I've said, I think Bryan is undoubtedly deserving of what awaits him in New Orleans Sunday night. At the same time, I wish people would acknowledge his negatives. He's not a Punk on the mic. Not a Foley, not a Flair, not an Austin, not a Trip. I think Punk should go down as the overall better "Fruit of the Tree of ROH" as he compares to Bryan. I think he is great on the mic....punk is too, but when D-Bry was a heel & got left at the alter by AJ & he went off on the Rock about being the face & fighting him somehow - that was amazing Plus, I think he's better at drawing the underdog sympathy out of the crowd, similar to Bret Hart...that style he wrestles is just very fun to watch in a smaller guy that has many ways to beat you and not just one finisher
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Apr 4, 2014 14:25:03 GMT -5
Faults and hiccups? Not sure which promos you're watching. All guys stumble over their words every so often, especially when most of what they're saying isn't memorized from a script... I'm not putting Punk down, he's amazing. But to say he's the best of all time? Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, I've never found his delivery to be anything special. What he says is usually terrific, but if you weren't sitting down and listening to the words he was saying, you probably wouldn't turn your head to see who was talking. 9:45 to 11:20 still gives me chills. That's exactly it. Bryan can't do that. Bryan simply can't create must-see TV like that - he just doesn't have the capability. Oh, and while we're on the subject of Saint Bryan, and what a nice bloke he is... as far as I'm aware, Bryan had a normal upbrining, with a stable family life. So Punk's a prick, he's selfish, he's arrogant, he's ungrateful, he's this or that.... while Bryan is genial, humble and unassuming - but then he didn't have to deal with what Punk did growing up. Bryan wasn't basically ignored by his own parents, ripped off by his own brother, and didn't have an alcoholic Father. Punk's been an outsider most of his life, it seems. Do you think that if Bryan had gone through all that, he would be all sweetness and light? And people wonder why Punk is not a kiss-arse and is distant and stand-offish around anyone outside his inner circle, ie fans? Maybe people should take that into acccount, before they label Punk as the devil, while annointing Bryan the patron saint of pro-wrestling.
|
|
Chief
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 21, 2008 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by Chief on Apr 4, 2014 14:45:09 GMT -5
To me it comes down to two things.
First the height of Punk's popularity was created by his own pipe bomb promo while Bryans popularity was created organically by the fans. I was there the night after Mania 28 and the crowd being so insanely behind Bryan in the dark match is something I'll never forget. So there's that crowd connection because we helped get Bryan there.
Secondly Bryan comes off across as very genuine and likeable. Punk has admitted that more often then not he can be a dick and an ass. In wrestling it's hard to come across someone like that. Bryan genuinely seems like he's just happy to be there and happy to be wrestling every night.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Apr 4, 2014 15:35:18 GMT -5
Bryan isn't nearly as bad as people make him out to be on the mic. He talks better than 75% of the roster when he gets the chance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 15:38:40 GMT -5
Bryan is more relatable than Punk. Bryan is a happy dude from a nowhere town and has a normal dude feel to him. Punk is more or less a prick dude from a major city and has tattoos everywhere and raddles on about being straight edge and just doesn't have that normal dude feel about him. More people can make a connection with Bryan than Punk.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Apr 4, 2014 15:40:07 GMT -5
Essentially, Daniel Bryan's shortcomings on the mic don't matter when he has such a strong connection with the audience. When the people love you, they love you. Same thing happened with Jeff Hardy, and he was a much worse talker than Bryan.
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Apr 4, 2014 16:41:49 GMT -5
First of all, I just want to say that I can't believe people still think that Bryan was going to be sticking around as a Wyatt for much more than two weeks.
Secondly, CM Punk is one of my favorite superstars of all time, and he could beat Bryan on the mic any day, but Bryan just happens to be more likable and more fun to watch. People still have some ludicrous idea stuck in their head that Bryan is only over because of the "YES!" chants, failing to realize people get behind Bryan because it's just so much fun seeing him run around the ring, kicking people in the head and hitting suicide dives out of nowhere. The "YES!" chants help, of course, but where would have Austin gone if he never gave his Austin 3:16 speech?
|
|