Whos Better Round 2 Match 1

by NickisBHAFC Wed 19 Jun 2013, 3:41 pm

Round 2

First match sees The Swiss sensation Antonio Cessaro take on the best in the world CM Punk

Antonio Cessaro
Former US Champion
Competed in the 2013 Royal Rumble

CM Punk
Former WWE Champion
Former World Champion
Former Intercontinental Champion
Former Tag Team Champion
2 time money in the bank winner
Former ECW Champion

by Gcass Wed 19 Jun 2013, 3:48 pm

Where's the dynamite kid?

by Gcass Wed 19 Jun 2013, 3:48 pm

Or Eddie Guerrero for that matter?

by Shot 21 LCFC Wed 19 Jun 2013, 3:57 pm

Was Fandango in Round 1? I genuinely cant remember. If so, did he make it through?

by Price Check On Jackass Wed 19 Jun 2013, 7:23 pm

Holy mother of god.... IT'S ROUND TWO! BAH GAWD KING, IT'S ROUND TWO GOD DAMMIT!

by **x12x** Wed 19 Jun 2013, 10:39 pm

Round two and I'm already stuck...I love CM Punk but I feel bad voting against Cesaro...this competition isn't fun anymore!

by **x12x** Wed 19 Jun 2013, 10:40 pm

Punk's going to go through so I voted for Cesaro to keep myself happy.

by Guest Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:37 am

Gillberg

by Lancashire_Lad Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:49 am

Funaki

by The_Enigma Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:50 am

Just thought I'd give you all a heads up, I know it's a bit of fun but I actually got a warning for posting Curt Hawkins on a couple of these threads who by the way wasn't included in the top 64 Shocked

So please be careful

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:52 am

Not to come across as Johnny Hate-The-Polls, but really, what's the point? So much time and effort wasted to confirm that the majority on here think CM Punk is the "best in the world". Ooh ooh, Daniel Bryan might run him close, but will ultimately lose in the final to him... again.

In fact, if CM Punk doesn't win this, I'll happily go back to lurking until Summerslam. Although at this rate this tournament will still be running come the biggest event of the summer.

by **x12x** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:55 am

Kid Vicious the point is that it's something to do...if you don't like it then don't read it...we can't guarantee that Punk will win, probably will but we don't know.

by Shot 21 LCFC Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:03 am

Not if Fandango has anything to say about it!!!

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:10 am

xviperx wrote:Kid Vicious the point is that it's something to do...if you don't like it then don't read it...we can't guarantee that Punk will win, probably will but we don't know.

I'd love to not read it, I really would. But it seems that as CM Punk wins one of the 606 online tournaments a new one springs up, almost to reaffirm the previous one. It's just an endless stream of them. I log on and have a choice Raw spoilers, I hate John Cena, or "best ever" polls to post in. Don't you guys get bored answering the same questions every week?

PS, WTH is with the quote thing?!! I take a couple of weeks off and this FREE service screws up!!

by **x12x** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:13 am

Kid Vicious wrote:
xviperx wrote:Kid Vicious the point is that it's something to do...if you don't like it then don't read it...we can't guarantee that Punk will win, probably will but we don't know.

I'd love to not read it, I really would. But it seems that as CM Punk wins one of the 606 online tournaments a new one springs up, almost to reaffirm the previous one. It's just an endless stream of them. I log on and have a choice Raw spoilers, I hate John Cena, or "best ever" polls to post in. Don't you guys get bored answering the same questions every week?

PS, WTH is with the quote thing?!! I take a couple of weeks off and this FREE service screws up!!

Click the bit at the option at the end and it turns it back to editor mode.

I understand you might not like what you read...the easiest option? Post something and improve the quality of posts...complaining won't do anything but add to the negativity.

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:14 am

Kid Vicious wrote:
xviperx wrote:Kid Vicious the point is that it's something to do...if you don't like it then don't read it...we can't guarantee that Punk will win, probably will but we don't know.

I'd love to not read it, I really would. But it seems that as CM Punk wins one of the 606 online tournaments a new one springs up, almost to reaffirm the previous one. It's just an endless stream of them. I log on and have a choice Raw spoilers, I hate John Cena, or "best ever" polls to post in. Don't you guys get bored answering the same questions every week?

PS, WTH is with the quote thing?!! I take a couple of weeks off and this FREE service screws up!!

Kid V figures it?
Edit: Yes he does!

by **Crimey** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:40 am

It's nothing to do with us, the host site has changed it and we can't do anything about it.

by **x12x** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:42 am

I don't think it's that bad tbh, as long as you know the 'switch to editor mode' thing...it actually saves quite a bit of time when posting normal stuff tbh.

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:43 am

Crimey wrote:It's nothing to do with us, the host site has changed it and we can't do anything about it.

I just pressed every button until it changed.
Wink

by **Crimey** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:44 am

It would be much better if they sorted out the quote thing, that's the only issue with it that I have.

As for the tournament, it's good, the final result might not be that important in the end, it's when perhaps difficult decisions are made when two favourites are put up against each other. If some people spent the same effort debating the different match ups as they did moaning about it, the forum would have a lot of decent debate.

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:05 pm

Crimey wrote:It would be much better if they sorted out the quote thing, that's the only issue with it that I have.

As for the tournament, it's good, the final result might not be that important in the end, it's when perhaps difficult decisions are made when two favourites are put up against each other. If some people spent the same effort debating the different match ups as they did moaning about it, the forum would have a lot of decent debate.

Not when the forum is a love-in for the same 5 guys!
"Oh I love CM Punk so much. He's amazing, just amazing. Bret might give him 4/10, but Bret knows nothing. CM Punk nom nom nom"
"I love CM Punk too!"
"Me too! He's just great"
"Don't forget Daniel Bryan"
"Oh he's so good. He's like the best ever to step in the ring."
"Except for Punk"
"Yeah true. Don't forget Dean Ambrose. There's big things in that guys future"
"Oh Dean Ambrose! I just get wet thinking about him"
"I wish Austin Aries would make the switch"
"Oh me too. He's amazing. He's like the 3rd best guy to ever step in the ring. CM Punk is number 1"
"Yeah CM Punk. Nom nom nom. He's so amazing"
"I loved The Rock when I was a kid"
"The Rock was amazing. Kinda blew this time round. But it's The Rock!"
"I wish CM Punk would've beaten him at the Rumble"
"Me too! CM Punk is freakin awesome"

by Gcass Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:09 pm

You're right KV, none of those guys are anywhere near as good as the Dynamite Kid!

BTW, I haven't posted on the board for nearly a year before this last week (I have a little time on my hands after having surgery a few weeks ago). Look through my posts, I don't think I've ever mentioned any of those guys.

by **Crimey** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:15 pm

If you think that way Kid, why not try and start debate by challenging those views.

I think there has actually been a lot of criticism of Punk in recent months on this site, Ambrose again was widely criticised for his poor match at Payback, The Rock I'd say gets about 80% negative feedback, Austin Aries is barely mentioned these days, Bully Ray is the TNA star people talk about.

I'd say this week more people have talked about Mark Henry then anybody else.

Weird how the more I spend time on this forum, the more it appears certain people are putting themselves through a chore by signing in every day, if people don't like the forum, why are you here???

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:17 pm

Gcass wrote:You're right KV, none of those guys are anywhere near as good as the Dynamite Kid!

BTW, I haven't posted on the board for nearly a year before this last week (I have a little time on my hands after having surgery a few weeks ago). Look through my posts, I don't think I've ever mentioned any of those guys.

They're not. There's no mystique with wrestling today. They were larger than life back then. Even if you knew nothing about wrestling you'd know you'd bumped into someone special if you'd come across Macho Man at an airport. And someone as awesome as Dynamite disappeared in a talent pool of megastars. Today he'd have been at very least the IC Champ. But then who isn't a champ at some point these days? CM Punk is the top guy now, sure, but where would Phil Brooks have got in 1985, or even 1999? Jobber to the stars.

by **x12x** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:19 pm

Well said Crimey...this is an internet forum, it's not mandatory that you come on it...if you don't like what you read add something to the discussion, don't just take away from it by bitching and moaning.

Out of the stars you listen Punk and Bryan are the only ones that I'd say are universally liked on here...add in these names though Bray Wyatt, Mark Henry, Dolph Ziggler and even Fandango...until something officially happens, you can't guarantee it.

by **Crimey** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:21 pm

Kid Vicious wrote:
Gcass wrote:You're right KV, none of those guys are anywhere near as good as the Dynamite Kid!

BTW, I haven't posted on the board for nearly a year before this last week (I have a little time on my hands after having surgery a few weeks ago). Look through my posts, I don't think I've ever mentioned any of those guys.

They're not. There's no mystique with wrestling today. They were larger than life back then. Even if you knew nothing about wrestling you'd know you'd bumped into someone special if you'd come across Macho Man at an airport. And someone as awesome as Dynamite disappeared in a talent pool of megastars. Today he'd have been at very least the IC Champ. But then who isn't a champ at some point these days? CM Punk is the top guy now, sure, but where would Phil Brooks have got in 1985, or even 1999? Jobber to the stars.

Totally disagree, in 1999 he'd have been a huge star I reckon, bigger than he is today. He's better than Jericho who was getting over.

1985 is a whole different beast, you had to be 6 foot + tall and 250+ pounds to be a star then so I doubt he'd have been a big star then, but I don't think Austin or Rock would have been either.

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:23 pm

Less than 350 posts in 2 years more than suggests i don't come on here too often. I used to love it, the old BBC 606. Occasionally I rear my little head and nothing changes. It's the same damn stuff every time. And when someone does post something a bit left field and different (I'm going to suggest Marsh's "Swerves" post), it just get trolled by nonsense.

by Shot 21 LCFC Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:25 pm

Right now, if it came to Mark Henry v CM Punk in the final, I would vote Henry.

by **Crimey** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:28 pm

Kid Vicious wrote:Less than 350 posts in 2 years more than suggests i don't come on here too often. I used to love it, the old BBC 606. Occasionally I rear my little head and nothing changes. It's the same damn stuff every time. And when someone does post something a bit left field and different (I'm going to suggest Marsh's "Swerves" post), it just get trolled by nonsense.

If you liked the BBC 606 then you cannot complain about the "nonsense" on this site. The BBC 606 9/10 articles were rubbish, they were either deliberate wind up attempts, people calling it fake, or just the same old "Who is your favourite wrestler?" This site has encouraged people to write good articles and the discussion about shows is 100% better than it ever was on 606 which was stifled by the fact that the moderators hated the wrestling section (where as here, I think all admins bar two are wrestling fans) and there was simply too many people and any good debate got lost in the crowd.

If you want to see good debate, you should try and encourage it yourself. Write an article saying why we should rate Dynamite Kid higher, or why CM Punk isn't that good. Moaning that nobody else is doing it doesn't help anybody.

by Gcass Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:33 pm

Kid Vicious wrote:Less than 350 posts in 2 years more than suggests i don't come on here too often. I used to love it, the old BBC 606. Occasionally I rear my little head and nothing changes. It's the same damn stuff every time. And when someone does post something a bit left field and different (I'm going to suggest Marsh's "Swerves" post), it just get trolled by nonsense.

I produced the Light Heavy/Cruiser competition to try and do something different, I'm sorry it's so disappointing KV. I actually thought it detracted from the likes Of CM Punk et al.

I've never been an Eddie fan or mentioned him on these forums before but you accused me of skewing a competition so he could win, there are far more deserving wrestlers in the group.

by Sara Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:36 pm

Wow, someone needs to calm down! If you don't like it, don't read it or bother posting. Everyone is allowed to like who they want and so what if a few people are big fans of the same person?! Who cares!

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:40 pm

I will respond gents (and lady), but I gotta get some work out before lunch.
Very Happy

by **x12x** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:45 pm

KV, I posted a thread just for you...let's get some debate going!

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 3:35 pm

Right, I'm back! This might get a bit TL:DR.

Crimey - I'll see you on Vipers post in regards to the CM Punk part!
With regards to the BBC 606, maybe I am viewing it through rose-tinted spectacles. It wasn't that great on there what with an endless river of comedians coming over from the football boards to tell us how fake wrestling was. There was also a lot more trolling than on here too. But what the original 606 had, in my mind, was diversity. There were more posters championing the old school, and not just the 1980's heyday. Their voices were all too often drowned out by far too many people dreaming of a return to the Attitude Era. Everyone else was just pretty much moaning about the current state of wrestling. At least the product has improved in that time, but it seems to me, that although there are posters that still champion the Attitude Era (which incidentally, I don't), even they seem to be an endangered species on here. Because of this, so many of the posts are just regurgitated on an almost weekly basis. It gets boring, which is why I (and I'd guess plenty of posters on here) rotate from poster, to lurker, to laterz 606, back to lurker, to poster, and then repeat.

In regards to actually submitting a post, a quick look at my posting history will show you that's been a glorious waste of my time in the past. I don't get the feeling it's to do with an "in-club" on this forum, which it occasionally felt like on the BBC, but maybe more to do with the fact that most just want to talk about last nights Raw, or the next upcoming PPV. Hey, maybe my posts just suck.

Gcass. My blasting your post was nothing personal. I'm sorry if you've taken it that way. I certainly didn't mean to troll something you've clearly taken some time to put together. The red mist somewhat came not from Dynamite not being involved (as yes, he doesn't fulfil the criteria needed for your tournament), but Jushin Liger not being given the recognition he deserves. So you've not skewed it for another Eddie triumph and it's all down to luck of the draw, but still, Jushin Liger not making it through to me says more about peoples lack of recognition of past talent on here, than of personal opinion. Of course, that's not down to you, but the people who voted on there. But just because you all say someone else is better, doesn't make it so. It just means you've all seen more of Jeff Hardy than Jushin Liger.

Sara. It's not about having to calm down. Believe me, I'm hardly raging whilst I try to subtlety write without my colleagues noticing that I'm not actually working. I can't know if I don't like a post unless I read it. And surely the point of not liking something on a forum is to generate a debate about it? It's not like I've become abusive or have personally insulted anyone, I just disagree and try to offer a different opinion from what seems to be the general consensus. Surely those posts are more fun to respond to than when everyone is on the same page?

Viper. I'm heading over there now!

by Gcass Thu 20 Jun 2013, 5:39 pm

"Gcass. My blasting your post was nothing personal. I'm sorry if you've taken it that way. I certainly didn't mean to troll something you've clearly taken some time to put together."

Don't worry KV, in all honesty you've helped by drawing attention to the polls and stirred some good debate. Just as I wanted.

I chose this weight division as a poll as I thought it brought something different.

"But just because you all say someone else is better, doesn't make it so. It just means that you've all seen more of Jeff Hardy than Jushin Lisher."

That's a valid qualification KV and I completely agree. Believe it or not I've never (knowingly) seen Jeff Hardy wrestle, nor Brock Lesnar for that matter. I was a child in the 80s (it was acceptable)and grew up watching (and appreciating) the likes of Dean Malenko, I didn't want to mention this however as I wanted the poll to remain objective.

That's the problem with polls, it's like politics. My father in law has an excellent saying that applies to this situation "opinions are like bum holes, everyone has one". You're right in that perhaps I should have made the distinction that this is a poll of who the 606v2 community thinks is the best in the world, not make the statement that they are the best in the world without qualification. But like voting, the system that we use is there because it is democratic and there are no better alternatives.

I stopped watching wrestling towards the end of the attitude era (probably due to going to uni and not having Sky for the first time), never saw any of the ruthless aggression era and started picking it up again around 2010 when I got Sky tv again. If truth be told, I don't enjoy it as much as I did as a boy (a little bit like Christmas). What I do enjoy are the moments that take me back to that era, I also have a penchant for the theatrical. That's why these days I do enjoy seeing the likes of Ambrose and Punk work, promoing is a very important skill.

I had a phase of liking watching the big men work (no double entendre intended), I thought Sid and Diesel were brilliant (I named a pet terrapin after Sid and I had a ferret called Diesel (I lived on a farm)). I look back at the likes of Nash now and feel a bit embarrassed. My middle daughter loves Jack Swagger, there's no accounting for taste!

Shall we cuddle?

by Kid Vicious Thu 20 Jun 2013, 5:58 pm

Go on then, <<forum hug>>
I'll be back for some more fun and frolics tomorrow!

by Kid Vicious Fri 21 Jun 2013, 9:42 am

It sounds like you and me are from the same era Gcass - everything has sucked since 1991. It hasn't, but that's when the magic died.

In terms of your poll, Dean Malenko has to be up there. He didn't transcend to main event like Eddie (who I think got a ride on being one of the in-business names and being part of a weaker roster), but as a cruiserweight he was just fantastic to watch. I think he'd be my overall pick to win the thing. He's known for being a cruiserweight, and was always going to stay there because of his size, whereas others maybe had bigger physiques or personalities (such as Guerrero and Pillman), and they become known for being something other than a Light-Heavyweight.

Is Jushin Liger better than Jeff Hardy, or not? Jeff Hardy has certainly had a bigger impact on the US (and thus mainstream) side of the sport, but "Thunder" in 1991 was just "what are my eyes seeing?!" I'm sure there are plenty on here that have seen both and can say, "it's Hardy Kid V, shut up" but then I believe there's also plenty that tuned in much later will look at it and think, "well I know who Hardy is" and that falsifies the vote. In 15 years time there'll be another poll, "who's better Jeff Hardy or Flash Johnson (hypothetical star of 2028)?" and it'll be the same outcome, and those championing the Ruthless Aggression era will be all "whoa!! don't dismiss Hardy like that!!"

by **Enforcer** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 10:30 am

That's just the nature of wrestling though. I would rather someone voted for Hardy (for example) because they had seen him, rather than Liger just because people tell them he is brilliant.

It's the same as TNA guys, for a while Austin Aries was very close to being the best in the business at the time, but because of TNA's smaller viewership he didn't do as well in votes when done.

It's not like music where it is easy to listen to old bands and compare them - watching a couple of matches of a wrestler doesn't always give a fair representation of there talent.

by **x12x** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 10:35 am

Also KV this seems to be a case of "well they didn't vote for someone I think is better so they must be wrong/not know who he is"...that's the thing about these polls, it's not about who's best at one category of wrestling it's about who fans prefer...it's all opinion based...the only way you'd actually know who the best is would be have a real life MMA style tournament...no story lines, no acting...just fighting....but then for that, just go watch UFC.

by **Crimey** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 10:39 am

Yeah, it's going to be difficult to ever judge something that I haven't seen. I'm somebody who doesn't find wrestling that interesting just going back and watching a random match, I like the package with the storyline and the feud and the build up. The match on its own does very little for me.

I don't think Jeff Hardy is really that highly rated either.

by Kid Vicious Fri 21 Jun 2013, 10:58 am

xviperx wrote:Also KV this seems to be a case of "well they didn't vote for someone I think is better so they must be wrong/not know who he is"

Yes, I'm aware it does come across like that. That isn't my intention. My goal is to make you question your vote.
I could say Macho Man is the best ever and argue a point, but how can I say that without having properly experienced Gotch, Thesz, Rogers and Graham? It's not so much people preferring someone newer over someone older, I'm not one of those posters, but more how the draw was originally made.

For example, if you made a poll of "Who's better, Gillberg or Jesse Ventura?" The answer should be obvious, but how many votes would Gillberg get just because he's in living memory on here? My point is not that I'm right and you are all wrong, but more just because Gillberg's votes outweigh Ventura's doesn't make it so. There's several reasons Gillberg got more votes, and although some may genuinely think he's better, that wouldn't be the sole reason for voting him.

And if someone actually posted "Macho Man is the best ever" I'd come on and argue that too, just because..

by **x12x** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 11:02 am

Like I said, it's an opinion poll...your original complaint was that everyone would vote Punk but in this round...I voted Cesaro, so as I said on here I think...you can't guarantee who people will vote for!

by Kid Vicious Fri 21 Jun 2013, 11:12 am

I stand by my original comments. If Punk doesn't win, I'll go back to lurking until at least Summerslam.

by Bull Fri 21 Jun 2013, 11:13 am

Kid Vicious wrote:

xviperx wrote:Also KV this seems to be a case of "well they didn't vote for someone I think is better so they must be wrong/not know who he is"

Yes, I'm aware it does come across like that. That isn't my intention. My goal is to make you question your vote.
I could say Macho Man is the best ever and argue a point, but how can I say that without having properly experienced Gotch, Thesz, Rogers and Graham? It's not so much people preferring someone newer over someone older, I'm not one of those posters, but more how the draw was originally made.

For example, if you made a poll of "Who's better, Gillberg or Jesse Ventura?" The answer should be obvious, but how many votes would Gillberg get just because he's in living memory on here? My point is not that I'm right and you are all wrong, but more just because Gillberg's votes outweigh Ventura's doesn't make it so. There's several reasons Gillberg got more votes, and although some may genuinely think he's better, that wouldn't be the sole reason for voting him.

And if someone actually posted "Macho Man is the best ever" I'd come on and argue that too, just because..

I would vote Jesse Ventura not because of the wrestling (never knew he was one lol) but due to his Conspiracy Theory TV show.

by **x12x** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 11:18 am

Would you be shocked though? Yeah there may be favourites here but that will be the same everywhere...Punk is obviously a favourite here and on many sites due to him being the anti-Cena...it's pretty likely that he'll win but you never know...him winning doesn't take away from the competition if it's who the majority of us think is the best at the moment.

I still disagree with your "5 wrestler" comment though, I really think the forum had a vast fan base and though a lot of us love Punk, we have many people who would openly chose Henry, Bryan, Ambrose, Fandango and even Slater over him and mean it.

There will always be favourites on here and to battle your original comment, that isn't a bad thing...they bring people to the board and then it's our job as posters to keep people here by posting about other things...in your original post you said that there was no point with these polls but they're just one aspect of what we can do.

Like I showed with the Time Machine post, it doesn't always have to be polls, you just have to ignore the bits you don't like and focus on the stuff you do like.

by Kid Vicious Fri 21 Jun 2013, 11:41 am

But IS Punk the best? To some fans, maybe even most fans, he is. But to me it's not an open and shut case. WWE spoon feed each and every one of us that he's the "best in the world" each week. They did the same with Jericho, they did the same with Bret Hart. It's just in my nature to question what I'm told.

The "5 wrestler" comment was just me baiting the board.
Whistle

by **Crimey** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 11:47 am

To be fair to me and probably many others, I was a huge fan of Punk way before the 2011 promo, way before the 'best in the world' gimmick even came around. I'd never watched his Ring of Honour days, but straight away in ECW he became one of my favourites and I supported him and thought he was great even when everybody else said he was rubbish during 2008 when he was the face WHC.

It's not always a matter of just believing what you are told.

I honestly think Punk is the best in the business right now, I'd say the only person since about 2009 to have pulled me into storylines and matches like Punk can is Shawn Michaels, which says a lot.

by **x12x** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 12:02 pm

Kid Vicious wrote:But IS Punk the best? To some fans, maybe even most fans, he is. But to me it's not an open and shut case. WWE spoon feed each and every one of us that he's the "best in the world" each week. They did the same with Jericho, they did the same with Bret Hart. It's just in my nature to question what I'm told.

The "5 wrestler" comment was just me baiting the board.

I think that's quite a patronising way to look at fans of Punk. For me Punk got me back in to wrestling, it was cool to see someone who was Straight Edge, covered in tattoos and who best of all spoke his mind...I got bored of watching over ally muscly guys get a push, so seeing someone I could relate too was nice.

The fact is, we weren't spoon fed that he was the best, for years he wasn't really pushed and we were told that Cena was the one we should see as the best...he still is...I'm sorry but this is still coming off as "well they don't agree with me so they must be falling in to the WWE trap blah blah blah". Your original point was that you kept seeing the same stuff every time you come on here and I said that being negative wouldn't help that...I even posted a thing about present stars in past era's and you've seemed to carry on the negativity by shooting down most people's suggestions as "no they're just not as good as good as older stars"...to me it seems that you dislike the present WWE and to that all I can say is that maybe a forum about wrestling may not be the best place for you...especially considering we will be talking mainly about the here and now.

by Kid Vicious Fri 21 Jun 2013, 12:19 pm

How is it patronising? No where do I say anyone is wrong for thinking Punk is number one. It's a valid opinion to think he is; it's also a valid opinion to think he's not. But because I have a different opinion, you suggest this forum is no place for me? How draconian of you. All I'm saying is that some fans will get sucked in by the WWE marketing machine that gets behind their current "best ever". He's still good, he has to be to be marketed in that way in the first place, and because of his position on the roster he will place highly in any poll. But IS he number one that easily? Can other stars so nonchalantly be disregarded? Does he deserve to win a vote 80% to 20% against Antonio Cessaro? Is he really that much better than him?

by **Crimey** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 12:32 pm

Yes, CM Punk has shown that he can do a lot more than Cesaro can.

by Sponsored content

Whos Better?