Thread Tools

Punked Up · 01-18-2013, 04:08 PM

I'm no super Punk fan, but at some point this needs some real discussion. When Bruno was champ, he'd defend it a few times a year, 4-5 max (as far as I know). At rough count, Punk has made 20-25 title defenses I'm sure.

So, is this a valid point? Even if it's not, what would be the equivalent to this reign back then? At some point, we ought to consider this kind of thing...

SinJackal · 01-18-2013, 04:15 PM

It's all scripted, not actual title defense fights. So no WWE title reign is impressive based on it's length.

They can be impressive based on ratings, buyrates, and overall fan interest though. You know, things used to measure the success of a wrestler and the push. Wins and losses aren't a good measuring stick since it's predetermined.

**LadyCroft** · 01-18-2013, 04:15 PM

I don't know... I wasn't around for Bruno's.

And what does, "impressive" even mean when you're talking about a scripted competition. How can that really be impressive?

Edit: SinJackal ninja'd me on the "impressive" part...damnit.

Anark · 01-18-2013, 04:18 PM

It's not just 'Punk's run'. It's the whole company's run. It's not just Punk who decides he will be champion for so long. Vince, maybe HHH, and a whole load of people decided this. Yeah, Punk got the short straw and had to go out there and make it work, but it's not just down to him.

And his points about wrestling in a different era are absolutely bang on. Fuck Bruno. Wouldn't even know who he was if they didn't keep mentioning him.

I just can't get emotionally invested in wrestling pre-Hulk Hogan.

jonoaries · 01-18-2013, 04:23 PM

I don't think many posters in here are familiar with Bruno's epic 7 year run..

I'm surprised Punk lasted as long as he has. Considering guys get injured (as he did) and get stripped (which he didn't).

Bl0ndie · 01-18-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinJackal

It's all scripted, not actual title defense fights. So no WWE title reign is impressive based on it's length.

They can be impressive based on ratings, buyrates, and overall fan interest though. You know, things used to measure the success of a wrestler and the push. Wins and losses aren't a good measuring stick since it's predetermined.

Surely the quality of, and how entertaining the run is, is far more important...

**Gamblor** · 01-18-2013, 04:45 PM

Can't really judge since I know an extreme minimal amount about Bruno's run. I do know I'd struggle to find a long reign (6+ months we'll say) that I've enjoyed more than Punk's that I know about.

Honestly though, I don't think Punk and Bruno's runs are comparable. Just too many different variables, mainly the talent/credibility of the roster and what it was like wrestling back then compared to now.

xdoomsayerx · 01-18-2013, 04:47 PM

Idk, everyone said Bruno could sell out msg. Punk can't do that

alliance · 01-18-2013, 04:52 PM

im not too impressed with punks title reign period let alone compared to Sammartino's

punks reign hasnt been filled with memories that stand out to me compared to The Rocks, Austins and Harts

**Riddle101** · 01-18-2013, 05:21 PM

I'll go with Bruno's 7 year run, and not because he held it for 7 years. But because he held it during a time when professional wrestling was more kayfabe and serious then today. When you look at Bruno's reign back then. He'd defend it 4 -5 times a year or something. Kind've like boxing and how boxers don't defend the the title every month. But he'd defend it 4 - 5 times a year, which made it more of a big deal back then. Every time the title was defended, it was special and when Bruno lost the title, it was a very big deal at the time. Today is different because WWE is a joke and they treat the title like a joke. The title reigns are not nearly as great as they used to be, and when someone wins the title nowadays it's not historic. Nobody is going to remember Alberto Del Rio winning the WWE championship, or Sheamus. But history will remember the guys who beat Bruno, or the guys who beat Bob Backlund and of course Hulk Hogan because of the length of time they held the title, and how much the title meant back in their times.

As for CM Punk's reign. Well there were times when his title reign felt underwhelming, maybe even a bit boring. I wasn't a fan of some of the feuds he's been in the last year. I didn't care about his feud with Dolph Ziggler, or Ryback. I also didn't really care about his feud with John Cena, but I guess his feud with Cena gave his title reign some much needed refreshing. The only good thing to come out of his feud with Chris Jericho and Daniel Bryan were the matches, but other then that both feud were shit. So yeah Punk's reign wasn't all that impressive, and i'm a fan of Punk.