I just finished watching Austin's documentary and after seeing that even he didn't care too much for his heel run after WM17, I couldn't help but compare it to Punk's latest face run. Now, I have a tough time labeling Steve Austin a "natural" face but I don't think I have to go into an explanation as to why he is better suited in that role. CM Punk on the other hand is undoubtedly a natural heel and it's quite obvious he's much more comfortable playing a villain.
Now I enjoyed Austin's comedy segments with Angle and Vince, but seeing him tap out to an Ankle lock seconds after it's been applied just didn't look right. For the most part, I did enjoy Punk's run as a face and would probably go as far to say I enjoyed his run better. But I can't deny the corniness and overall awkwardness it was in seeing him pander to the crowd the way he did. No to mention the backseat he took to Cena (and others).
Which run did you prefer? Who played the part better? And who do you think was more universally accepted despite both runs being viewed as lackluster?
Austin, partly because he formed the '2 Man Power Trip' with Triple H for a while and could be taken seriously as a legitimate badass champion. Babyface Punk lost most of the original charisma that made him interesting to begin with as he just towed the company line and became a meaningless champion that was still playing second fiddle to John Cena.
You know, I almost forgot about the 2-Man Power Trip. I would consider that the silver lining of that run. Coincidentally, you could say it was Triple H's involvement in both runs that ultimately lead both to be less effective. After his quad injury with Austin which ended the Power Trip and meaninglessly defeating Punk at NoC which took much of the steam away from his initial momentum.
Austin's comedy stuff as a heel with him,Angle & Vince was awesome. Punk was awesome till he came back & shortly afterwards stopped doing all the stuff which made him great.
I know you went into this thread with good intentions so don't take this the wrong way but this is a fairly pointless thread as everyone is gonna say Austin.
I'm a big fan of Punk, yet I think that Austin's run was much more successful and entertaining. Austin was one of the wrestlers who defined that era, and well, Punk was just talking about a change yet he didn't do anything for a change.
Both were hampered by things out of their control. Austin needed The Rock to make his heel turn work, Punk needed to remain edgy and be treated as the centerpiece of the show (which he was up until he apologized to Triple H)
Stone Cold Steve Austin as a heel in 2001 had one of the single greatest years any wrestler has ever had from a match quality perspective as his matches with The Rock, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho are some of the best of that whole era. Throw in matches with The Rock, Triple H, Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho as a babyface and match quality wise Stone Cold Steve Austin was on fire although as a character it was horrible to watch him become a cowardly heel.
CM Punk on the other hand had a couple of great matches with Chris Jericho and Bryan Danielson as a babyface this year but that is all that he did and his work as a heel in his match with John Cena at Night Of Champions was far better than anything else he did all year. The difference is CM Punk as a babyface works to an extent because he is popular but he is far from natural in doing so whereas Stone Cold Steve Austin showed over his whole career outside of his 2001 run that he could play a great heel especially in 1991, 1994, 1996 and 1997 whilst being the most popular babyface of all time.
I just can't comprehend how anyone could compare VM Punk to SCSA. Wait a minute, I'm starting to comprehend it: People who compare the two didn't watch wrestling back then, and see it through WWE's current retro Blu Ray releases. Yes, that's it.
Lol. Yup you nailed it. I see you completely understood the point of the thread and didn't look at it as a typical "Who do you like better?" comparison. I value you're contribution and look forward to reading your responses in the future.
In every aspect (except matches) Austin.. WWE completely dropped the ball with face Punk, plus it was dreadful to watch Punk being a face and sucking up tot he crowd and making poop jokes, glad they made him heel again.
Austin was a complete ass as a heel when he joined Vince, totally didn't see it coming and he pulled out all the stops to make you hate him, while some people say it wasnt the biggest highlight of his career as most fans still cheered him anyway, it certainly had a better impact.
As much of a punk fan I am, Austin's heel run in 2001 was far better. The two man power trip was fantastic especially. Punk is just a natural heel. Punk's face run wasn't bad until he started feuding with Bryan, and then it went downhill. The only really good feud he had in his face run this year was with Jericho.
I know Austin didn't like it and many fans aren't too keen on it but I thought that heel turn in Texas at WM was masterful. I loved the freshness of it and the interaction with Angle and Austin with, not against Vince was interesting to see. I liked Two Man Power Trip quite a bit.
It was painful watching WWE try their best to get Austin over as a heel that year and fail. That said, 2001 was 2001. The roster and the all round feel of watching the show was a whole lot better than it was now. If HHH didn't get injured when he did it would of been interesting to see how the two man power trip would of developed. If you're a fan of 'rasslin than Punk's face run wins. Other than that it was poor bar Jericho.
Um, what the hell? Comparing Austin to Punk? fpalm
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.