[ShowStopper '97]

I think he's on his way to being an all-time great, but not yet. And I certainly wouldn't put him above some of the all time greats who have wrestled for 20-25 years and had to compete with better workers in the company at a time when the business was hot. Those are the shoe-in all time greats. Any wrestler who is on top now benefits that the company doesn't have many stars for them to compete with for air-time.

[Clique]

Originally Posted by Best In The North Pole

I'd argue that Punk's hottest streak of his career was hotter than just about 99.9 percent of every WWE superstars streak in history, in terms of match quality + promo quality + hype + overall interest from the fans , Punk's hottest streak > Cena/HHH/HBK/Orton (well, no contest there ) , etc.

Would you say Punk is a Top 5-10 WWF/E superstar ever? Over guys like Savage, Bret, and HBK who I'd say are fair to compare him to them.

[Gamblor]

Originally Posted by Choke2Death

I disagree on damn near everyone of them. From 2003, Scott Steiner's feud with Chris Nowinski was more entertaining than Punk has been his entire career as well as the rest of this shitty show today. 2009 with Orton as top heel was like the Attitude Era compared to today (YES, even with guest hosts!) and 2011 around May time was better than now because R-Truth made it bearable when they gave him the chance to enter the main event for a brief minute. I wont argue 2007, though. But that has more to do with what happened outside the show than the shows themselves.

I don't remember the Steiner/Nowinski feud at all and truthfully, I don't give a damn. Nothing on Raw that year was worth while after Rock left besides maybe Austin being co-GM. Orton as top heel on Raw in 09 after he had his momentum crushed is part of the reason 09 got pretty bad that year, along with the guest hosts. 2011... the fact Truth is apparently what made it bearable says enough.

I'd still put 2012 above all of them.

[The Beast Incarnate]

Take Punk now and replace him with ANYBODY and tell me that the show would be that much better off. It's just a bunch of fucking bullshit honestly. No ONE wrestler can carry a wrestling program for three fucking hours every Monday Night. Not AUSTIN, not ROCK, not HOGAN, not FLAIR, not CENA, not PUNK.

Punk IS being asked to carry these shows too. Ridiculous.
¸
EDIT : Clique, I`ma think about that one. By think about it, I mean think about where I`d have Punk ALL TIME right now, as well as where he has the potential to end up if he stays on top being consistently great. I`d already have him miles above every other full-timer since 2009 though, and that`s without much thought (ALL AROUND). I had a GOAT top 25 list written in pen around here somewhere, I`ll let you guys know where I have Punk ranked in a little bit.

[Choke2Death]

Originally Posted by The Sandrone

I don't remember the Steiner/Nowinski feud at all and truthfully, I don't give a damn. Nothing on Raw that year was worth while after Rock left besides maybe Austin being co-GM. Orton as top heel on Raw in 09 after he had his momentum crushed is part of the reason 09 got pretty bad that year, along with the guest hosts. 2011... the fact Truth is apparently what made it bearable says enough.

I'd still put 2012 above all of them.

Steiner and Nowinski's debate segment was awesome. And that was me just taking the humorous "so bad it's good" stuff from 2003. Also Kane's initial unmasking and his monster run was great. As was Evolution started their feud with Foley. And Austin as co GM > 2012.

I'd rather get waterboarded than sit through another Raw from 2012 tbh. And those years weren't 3 hours at least.

[Brye]

Tbh, I like 2012, especially right now. Punk/Heyman owns, The Shield, Cesaro, I'm liking face Miz, good tag division that's starting to be used and Sheamus/Show being surprisingly good. Enjoying Barrett more than usual too.

[ShowStopper '97]

The thing is, even with him, the show is AWFUL. He is the only bright spot of the show and even he is stale. Punk is like HBK in alot of ways in 1996. HBK was the star of a shitty show and was asked to carry the company. Only thing different is the company was making even less money back then because there were less revenue streams than there are today. But the ratings for RAW for today and 1996 are even similar. No one is drawing for the company on Raw right now.

Aside from that, it is way too early to say he is better than some of the all time WWF/E greats. Some of those guys had 20-25 year runs in the company. Waaaay too pre-mature for that.

EDIT: But thinking about it, the similarities in situations that HBK had in '96 and Punk has now are rather striking. Both in their prime being asked to carry the company at a time when the company is not on fire, and is kind of an after-thought in both time periods. They were both one of the company's very few bright spots. And no matter how good they are (or anyone is), one guy can't carry a company.

Only real difference was back in '96 WWF had to deal with WCW breathing down it's neck. They have no such competition these days, which they should be very thankful for.

[Callamus]

I've liked a lot of 2012 simple because we've had some great wrestling. Most of the storylines have sucked, and while its great when we get BOTH being good, I'll take great matches and shit storylines over shit matches and good storylines.

[Brye]

Originally Posted by FuckChristmas

I've liked a lot of 2012 simple because we've had some great wrestling. Most of the storylines have sucked, and while its great when we get BOTH being good, I'll take great matches and shit storylines over shit matches and good storylines.

Agreed.

[The Cynical Miracle]

Just watched Hogan V Macho Man WM 5

The fuck was that?

Savage works on Hogans throat for fifteen minutes, Hogan Hulks up out of no where, does the leg drop of doom. Wins and completely no sells the the injury. What a plate of shit.