Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Re: Is Punk's run as champ more impressive than Bruno's?
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.
Favorite Wrestlers Of All Time - The Undertaker, The Rock and Stone Cold