Thread Tools

**TromaDogg** · 01-21-2013, 12:37 AM

Why is CM Punk's reign being compared to Bruno Sammartino's by anybody, when he hasn't even come close to Bob Backlund's or Hulk Hogan's reigns yet?

Taker-Tribute-Act · 01-21-2013, 12:41 AM

Something I brought up a while back would have been to compare title defences. Punks made 18 televised title defences in his over 14 month reign. It's easy to imagine that there may have been an additional match he he not suffered the pre-TLC injury. That's a more impressive stat than Sammartino, but that's probably the only one.

When Sammartino was injured in the middle of his reign the WWWF nearly folded without him. He was a much bigger star then than Punk is now. I think that's undeniable.

It's really up in the air as to how you judge it though. With all the added responsibility and the increase in media duties that Punk has had, added to the approx 300 shows that he will have competed it. That's more impressive than Bruno.

I think more than anything, It's more impressive that WWE have had as much faith in Punk.

Mrs. Austin Aries · 01-21-2013, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGreatBanana

For those who say Punk is killing the industry, I think Cena is the one who is preventing the industry from moving forward.

Why even blame the wrestlers in the first place, though? At the end of the day, don't the powers that be and not the wrestlers themselves have the final say in anything? Depending on who you talk to, either Punk or Cena or both are a manufactured product, with Punk the dark to Cena's light. Not trying to argue with you, but if anybody is to "blame" for anything, it's the 'E.

I admit I find the original question a bit strange because I think it's somewhat invalid given that this is an entirely different era. I don't mean WWE "Era", I mean the eras of pro wrestling and the world itself. Punk's reign, imo, is simply not applicable for several reasons I'm not able to coherently form at this late hour, but see the above for one important one.

**Panther** · 01-21-2013, 01:40 AM

Wrestling back then consisted of punches, suplexes, clotheslines, rinse and repeat. Not that impressive.

CNew2 · 01-21-2013, 01:51 AM

I'm with the poster further above, to be honest. I don't think you can compare Punk's title reign to Sammartino's. Then again, this is a completely different era of "wrestling". Cena's nearly year-long title reign had people in uproar after month 3-4, whereas I haven't seen too much negative outpour towards Punk's 400+ day reign.

ROGERTHAT21 · 01-21-2013, 02:36 AM

Nope. WWE and creative screwed it up far too much for it to be even considered anywhere close.

KeepinItReal · 01-21-2013, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cablegeddon

Or how about lol @ anyone comparing a wrestler who isn't even in the main events to a wrestler who was the face of a promotion for almost a decade.?

Lol its so true, he's not even the biggest star during a down period, AND he gets upstaged by retired dudes. CM Punk's my favorite, maybe of all time, but he just doesn't compare to someone who carried the company on his back for 11 yrs.

And Punk's entire claim to fame is that he acts real, but no one actually think he's real. For over a decade, Bruno Sammartino was the most important performer at maintaining the illusion of reality. Punk maintained the illusion for 30 seconds tops, when he said in an off-camera interview "I'm not re-signing, I'm done with the company." Great job, Punk.

**sbuch** · 01-21-2013, 09:32 AM

Bruno is too classic to even compare it's like comparing jeter and Ruth ..same game different culture

Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App