Whos Better Round 2 Match 1

First topic message reminder :

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

Kid Vicious wrote: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?

The line that was patronising was "It's just in my nature to question what I'm told." also I nowhere stated that because you don't agree that this forum wasn't for you but because all I've seen from you is negativity without actually trying to improve the problem you see, you seem to dislike what is posted and it doesn't make sense to me that someone would put themselves through stuff that they disliked...have your opinion but you need to take on board other peoples and not judge them for being sucked in my the WWE marketing machine...which, still doesn't really push Punk as the best...yeah, they put it on a t-shirt but does he really get a better push than Cena?

As for your point of Cesaro/Punk...can I ask if you voted?

To disclose which way I've voted in this poll is a lose-lose for me. If I say CM Punk, I'm a hypocrite. If I say Antonio Cessaro, then once again it's perceived as if I'm on the attack because people don't agree with me. My point, whoever I think is the better, was that should Cessaro be so easily dismissed? He's had a much much tougher journey into the big time compared to CM Punk (I'm not saying he's had it easy), yet still finds himself in the same place, albeit a rung lower on the roster.

If you choose to take "It's just in my nature to question what I'm told" as patronising against yourself or other posters, that is up to you. It wasn't aimed at anyone. And I even imply that the majority of praise heaped on Punk is warranted. That's line is just about who I am, and does not reflect on who any of you are.

See that's what you should have said instead of "what's the point" in doing polls...ask questions, spark debate instead of being negative about it from the outset. I actually voted Cesaro, I actually prefer his move set to Punks and while he doesn't have the personality that Punk does I think on a purely wrestling basis I prefer him.

Kid Vicious wrote: Does he deserve to win a vote 80% to 20% against Antonio Cessaro? Is he really that much better than him?

Yeah, because if the poll was "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" the scoreline should rightly be one-sided. Does that mean Fulham are a bad team? No. Does that mean that they're infinitely worse? No. But it's clear cut who's the better team.

Statto00 wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote: Does he deserve to win a vote 80% to 20% against Antonio Cessaro? Is he really that much better than him?

Yeah, because if the poll was "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" the scoreline should rightly be one-sided. Does that mean Fulham are a bad team? No. Does that mean that they're infinitely worse? No. But it's clear cut who's the better team.

I can't say I agree with you there. Manchester United, unlike CM Punk, are not scripted to win..

You don't seem to agree with much...it's weird, page two on this thread and you haven't actually given your opinion on the actual post of Cesaro v Punk.

Kid Vicious wrote:

Statto00 wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote: Does he deserve to win a vote 80% to 20% against Antonio Cessaro? Is he really that much better than him?

Yeah, because if the poll was "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" the scoreline should rightly be one-sided. Does that mean Fulham are a bad team? No. Does that mean that they're infinitely worse? No. But it's clear cut who's the better team.

I can't say I agree with you there. Manchester United, unlike CM Punk, are not scripted to win..

They're not, and football is completely unpredictable, but that's not the question being asked. The question is "who's better?" Fulham may, from time to time, beat Man Utd in a one-off game, but that doesn't mean they're a better team.

Statto00 wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote:

Statto00 wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote: Does he deserve to win a vote 80% to 20% against Antonio Cessaro? Is he really that much better than him?

Yeah, because if the poll was "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" the scoreline should rightly be one-sided. Does that mean Fulham are a bad team? No. Does that mean that they're infinitely worse? No. But it's clear cut who's the better team.

I can't say I agree with you there. Manchester United, unlike CM Punk, are not scripted to win..

They're not, and football is completely unpredictable, but that's not the question being asked. The question is "who's better?" Fulham may, from time to time, beat Man Utd in a one-off game, but that doesn't mean they're a better team.

The answer your question, "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" is a no brainer. And it wouldn't create a two page debate on the football forum, or much argument from Fulham fans. But it doesn't work as an analogy for the wrestling question posted.

xviperx wrote:You don't seem to agree with much...it's weird, page two on this thread and you haven't actually given your opinion on the actual post of Cesaro v Punk.

I can't on this one for reasons already laid out in a previous post. I will post an answer to the Big Show vs Ziggler one.

Kid Vicious wrote:

The answer your question, "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" is a no brainer. And it wouldn't create a two page debate on the football forum, or much argument from Fulham fans. But it doesn't work as an analogy for the wrestling question posted.

Sure it works. It still works even if the comparison were Man Utd or Chelsea, or another similarly close match. Punk is a better pro-style wrestler than Cesaro. They're close, and Cesaro would win matchups against most other people, but Punk is simply better. If you don't believe Punk is better, that's your opinion but you'll be in the minority. Perhaps you should use your energy in trying to convince us why you're right?

Statto00 wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote:

The answer your question, "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" is a no brainer. And it wouldn't create a two page debate on the football forum, or much argument from Fulham fans. But it doesn't work as an analogy for the wrestling question posted.

Sure it works. It still works even if the comparison were Man Utd or Chelsea, or another similarly close match. Punk is a better pro-style wrestler than Cesaro. They're close, and Cesaro would win matchups against most other people, but Punk is simply better. If you don't believe Punk is better, that's your opinion but you'll be in the minority. Perhaps you should use your energy in trying to convince us why you're right?

I don't think you should state Punk v Cesaro as fact but I get your point Statto. As an athlete I prefer Cesaro...his move set is better than Punks and he's in better shape but as an overall package...I'd give it to Punk.

Statto00 wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote:

The answer your question, "Who's better: Manchester United or Fulham?" is a no brainer. And it wouldn't create a two page debate on the football forum, or much argument from Fulham fans. But it doesn't work as an analogy for the wrestling question posted.

Sure it works. It still works even if the comparison were Man Utd or Chelsea, or another similarly close match. Punk is a better pro-style wrestler than Cesaro. They're close, and Cesaro would win matchups against most other people, but Punk is simply better. If you don't believe Punk is better, that's your opinion but you'll be in the minority. Perhaps you should use your energy in trying to convince us why you're right?

What do you mean by "right"? Where have I given an opinion either way on who is better out of Punk or Cesaro?
Punk is good, I don't dispute that. He hasn't made it to the top of the card without being a skilled in-ring technician. But then Curt Hawkins is also good. You could put him in the ring with a one-armed midget and he'd make em look like Flair. Difference? Punk sells shirts and so is scripted to win. It doesn't necessarily make him a better worker.

I don't really get the point that you're trying to get across anymore...it started on "what's the point in doing these polls" and now it seems to be a mission to get us to admit that maybe Punk isn't as good as we think he is?

I really don't get what you're trying to do now?

I don't get this scripted thing, next you'll be saying Father Christmas isn't real.

IT'S STILL REAL TO ME DAMMIT!!!!

It may be scripted, but the question isn't "who's going to win", it's "who's better", and people (generally) vote for whoever they think is the better wrestler (a combination of mic work, ring work and gimmick). And if someone has a better package (chortle), and it's plain enough for everyone to see, then the result of the poll is going to be an 80:20 ratio (at least).

xviperx wrote:I don't really get the point that you're trying to get across anymore...it started on "what's the point in doing these polls" and now it seems to be a mission to get us to admit that maybe Punk isn't as good as we think he is?

I really don't get what you're trying to do now?

My point hasn't changed. It still remains first and foremost, "What is the point in these same polls popping up every month? We all know who will win anyway".
Secondly, it's "How can so many of you vote for him without questioning why you're voting for him? Is he the best? Or are you told he's the best and just buy into it?" I'm not suggesting he's not one of the best, just questioning whether he is the best.

But these questions have already been asked, and now answered. It's starting to go around in circles.

Let me add, Viper, you've done a very good job justifying why you believe he is the best. I have enjoyed the sparring.

Weirdly I actually voted against him, I was just defending the right of people to vote for whoever they wanted without being judged as just voting for the popular guy or buying in to WWE's hype machine...overall I actual think I prefer Cesaro at the moment considering Punk's not been around properly since Mania and Cesaro in my opinion has the best move set going.

The problem is, it is so subjective. There will never be a true definitive answer, as unlike sport (rather than sports entertainment) the format is based on a storyline.

Sport is based entirely in reality, yes there is the occasional shock result. But unless two teams/athletes are evenly matched there is usually a general consensus of 'who is better'.

That is the beauty of wrestling (providing you can suspend reality), an underdog can generally come through (the American dream, barf). It can provide moments of disbelief as to what the body can do. For those that choose to subscribe to it and take it for what it is, it is also very easy to get drawn into it.

For me, I prefer the 'superstars' that can tell a story, that you can see develop. This is almost as important to me as technical ability, there are wrestlers out there that are technically brilliant but as dull as dish water or lack an edge (no pun intended). I think that's why people like Punk, Ambrose, Bryan and the like (the ones talked about on here) are so popular. Not only can they tell a story, they can sell a story (make it believable) through their skillset, intensity and ability.

What they also have (certainly in the case of Punk and Bryan) is the ability to adapt to their surroundings (politically and across timelines) that other wrestlers don't seem to have the ability to do. I look at Wade Barrett as an example, on the surface he is solid at most aspects of the game. I certainly think he's better than the likes of Sheamus, but what Sheamus has done that Barrett hasn't is adapt to the scene. Despite being repackaged on several occasions, Barrett has become stale as ultimately he plays the same character, Sheamus is a wise cracking, grinning idiot, but at least he's doing something different.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is easy to see why Punk is so popular and why people think he's the best as he plays that character well and bar very few others (sorry KV, like Bryan and Ambrose) there is very little that piques my interest in the product. He can be all things to everyone. But the product (overall) isn't aimed for the likes of us.

So when I'm faced with a poll like Cesaro v Punk I'll vote for Punk because I genuinely think he's better and that's the question that was asked. That's not to say that Cesaro isn't a very gifted athlete, he just hasn't shown (for me with my subjective glasses on) that he is better than Punk.

I've also been pleasantly surprised with the individuals that have gone through on my polls. Yes, some recent wrestlers have gone through, but not in the main. It remains to be seen who this board think is the best of my last 16, but I know who my favourite is.