View Full Version : Taker vs. Punk
Trixie Dominatrix
03-20-2007, 01:26 PM
Since lately I've been seeing a few people going into debate about which is better, I thought why not make a thread and let them settle it here.:unno
My fav is Taker only because I just started watching Punk and I've seen taker around for much longer.
Punk, because I'm not much of a 'Taker fan these days. Plus Punk is SO much better in the ring and as good as Taker is, he has his faults. Punk is all round one of the best wrestlers in the present day. The "he hasn't done shit to impress me" is absoulute BS. He wrestles on the "ECW2 brand and is given normally a max of 7 minutes to work with and is STILL the most over guy on that roster. He has won the fans over wonderfully and is something fresh and new in the WWE. Punk is a breath of fresh air and will only get bigger. And to top all that off Punk Vs Joe 1 2 or 3 > Any of the Taker's match
Yeah, Taker's good for his age and has been loyal for years, but Punk is still young and for his age has the skills of someone far older. And although talking isn't Takers deal, Punk is better on the mic too.
Hades
03-20-2007, 01:43 PM
As I was saying over in the other tread, Undertaker shouldn't have to be compared to Punk. They are two totally differant breeds of wrestlers. And I hate to say it but despite how great Punk is and what he may accomplish in the future, Taker will be remembered longer. Just read what I said in the thread Why I hate Taker and Kane to see why I think that.
As for being Punk being more high risk, who cares. I don't watch wrestling for stupid things like jumping off ladders or people acting like a Mexican jumping bean. If I did I wouldn't appreciate past wrestlers like Steamboat, Hennig, or Rude. (Which I do) I watch wrestling for the wrestling. That is why Cena and Batista depress me but Undertaker impresses me. Taker has paid his dues and then some. He has earned my respect, which is hard to do. Cena and Batista and , for now, Punk haven't because they have yet to pay their dues. Punk will become even greater and I know he will eventually gain my respect. Batista and Cena won't for the simple fact that they have not earned their spots in my opinion. I hate the fact that they are put over people who I do respect like Benoit and Jericho that deserve what Cena and Batista currently have. That is also why I hated Goldberg back in the day.
bawjustice
03-20-2007, 01:50 PM
And to top all that off Punk Vs Joe 1 2 or 3 > Any of the Taker's match
i dont think so
the pnuk vs. joe matches had more matt wrestling/technique than most of undertakers matchs but i dont think punk can carry crappy wrestlers the way undertaker has.
i could say more but it would all be assumed because theres somuch of taker work to go buy and so little of punks, and ive only seen a small part of it.
i always say it
you cant compare guys liek this because undertaker has doen so mucha nd cm punk has so much left to do.
LegendKiller 13
03-20-2007, 02:24 PM
i really like punks style but the edge would have to go the undertaker because of his experience
Experiance means jack. Hogan has more experiancethan Punk. Doesn't mean he's any better.
I'll reiterate. Punk/Joe > ANY UNDERTAKER MATCH.
Punk > Taker.
Punk has the clear in ring advantage here. Taker has never been all that great in the ring. He is very repetative, as well as predictable lately.
As far as mic skills go, Punk is the clear winner as well. While it is part of Taker's gimmick to talk as little as possible, he has cut promos before, and Punks promos > Taker's promos.
The only thing Taker has over Punk right now is accomplishments/experience, but thats soley because he's been in the business longer than Punk.
And as Ben said, I'd take Punk/Joe, Punk/Hero, Punk/Styles, Punk/Homicide, Punk/Cabana > Any Undertaker match. Taker is nothing more than a successful gimmick.
UTisNUM1
03-20-2007, 03:29 PM
Undertaker > Punk, there is no need to discuss this. They are completly different like Titan(Or whatever his name is) said. This debate is only about opinion and it isnt really relying on facts like the other debates have. Undertaker has been around longer than Punk. Its like saying the New James Bond is better than Sean Connery and it isnt the case the because the newer guy need to prove to the crowd that they have what it takes to surpass the older guy.
Hades
03-20-2007, 03:31 PM
Man, Have you ever gotten that feeling that fifteen years from now, fans will be comparing Punk to some new star and saying:
So and so > CM Punk
chanandler20
03-20-2007, 04:13 PM
I love Taker, but Punk >>>>Taker. Punk has more wrestling skills and better mic skills than taker plain and simple. Go watch any of Punk's matches from ROH and you'll see why. Sure Taker has had his match with Angle at NWO 06, but any of Punk's big matches from ROH are better.
Hades
03-20-2007, 04:15 PM
Unfortunately, knowing WWE, Punk will never be as big a name as Taker, plain and simple. Punk has too much talent.
That's why debates like this are so badly contested. Every one who likes Taker more just kinda have to say "cause he has more experiance and is a bigger name" cause they know he pales in comparison to Punk in the ring.
bawjustice
03-20-2007, 06:32 PM
this thread really isnt a debate
its all opinion
i feel that taker has had better matches than punk. but theres no real way to debate that because its gunna be people saying taker>punk and punk>taker back and forth like idiots.
Frannie
03-20-2007, 06:40 PM
this is hard to decide in all honesty they are two different types of wrestler and i couldn't compare them. Taker has been around a lot longer maybe when Punk has been in the WWE that length of time we can then judge who is greater. It doesn't say in what way one is greater than the other so overall I'm going with Taker plainly because of the fact he has accomplished a lot more, Taker yes has one move set but people pay to see him come out and do the same stupid thing over and over again he has to do it and its very popular.
i don't like these two being compared plainly because one has more experience and has earned a lot more respect from fans. So even if Punk is better in the ring it wont matter because Undertaker has more respect and hes been around a hell of a lot longer. So whos Greater? sorry guys Undertaker right now is the greater wrestler in the WWE
That's what I don't get. How does he become a greater WRESTLER( big ol' motherfucking emphasis on wrestler) because he has wrestled longer. It's like trying to tell me that Warrior is a better wrestler than Punk because he's been around longer.
I just don't get that theory, not one bit.
Frannie
03-20-2007, 06:53 PM
I should have said Superstar not wrestler. In the WWE right now people would rather see the Undertaker than CM Punk plainly because he has more respect. These 2 wrestlers cannot be compared because right now overall (not wrestling wise) one is greater than the other.
If we got these 2 in a ring i believe CM Punk would win but this topic doesnt say just wrestling wise so i went with overall.
I would have to say Punk is the overall better wrestler. His in ring ability is far greater than Takers, his mic work is as well, and he also plays the role of both heel and face better than Taker
Now Taker is a very good wrestler for his size and has great agility as well, but lets face it, he's no Mike Awesome(RIP). So for the sake of this arguement, all that Taker has over Punk is his character, because no matter who else you put in the role as Undertaker, nobody could play it as well as Mark has over the years.
Also to use the length of Takers career as reason to why he is better is useless, because in that case you could make an arguement for Hogan being better, and we all know the truth about that
And with that said, Punk >>> The Undertaker
Hades
03-20-2007, 08:54 PM
We will just have to see whether CM Punk is still in the WWE in a few years. Skill means nothing to the WWE when it comes time to release a wrestler.
We will just have to see whether CM Punk is still in the WWE in a few years. Skill means nothing to the WWE when it comes time to release a wrestler.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, so what is your point??
Whether or not Punk stays around in the WWE has nothing to do with his talent
Violet
03-21-2007, 02:59 AM
Undertaker easy.
I said in another thread, comparing Undertaker to Punk is like comparing a banana to an orange.
Why not make a debate on HBK vs Undertaker, that'd be better. Two WWE veterans.
cutabove75
03-22-2007, 11:36 AM
punk has to much talent to ever succeed in the WWE.
Only the stiffs get a push
RatedRTitan
03-22-2007, 12:08 PM
he also plays the role of both heel and face better than Taker
You didn't like the Ministry of Darkness UT? Or when he first debuted the kind of heel that he was? That was some of the greatest heel work ever right along the lines of the HHH/McMahon wedding and then the regime that followed.
I might bow down to the fact that Punk is better than UT, even though it is irrelevant because how are we going to compare a little guy with a big guy? A debate like UT or Kane is a fair debate or like CM Punk/RVD or something like that, but I won't say that Punk as heel is better than UT heel. No way.
I might start a thread about who's the better wrestler between Rey Mysterio and Big Show.
cutabove75
03-22-2007, 12:15 PM
the ministry was so stupid as is the whole faggy goth thing.
those i hate society types are all a bunch of faggots who just need a little extra love from their daddys
Undertaker easy.
I said in another thread, comparing Undertaker to Punk is like comparing a banana to an orange.
Why not make a debate on HBK vs Undertaker, that'd be better. Two WWE veterans.
Comparing HBK to Taker is the same as comparing Punk to Taker, one is a big guy and one isn't, unless you honestly think that the length of time spent in WWE or should I say kissing Vince's ass matters, which it doesn't have anything to do with wrestling talent
So in aspects of in-ring ability, mic work and playing heel and face, Punk is better than Taker, EASY
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.