[Geralt of Rivia]

i ran into this forum today, and while i don't really plan on being a long time member (i stopped watching wrestling back in 04') i must ask this question. what in the blue hell do people find so exciting about the wrestlers nowadays? all of them are extremely stale with super boring/generic gimmicks. CM punk? seriously? he's a poor man's jeff hardy, except NO WHERE near as exciting. daniel bryan is even worse. he's a small, wimpy looking guy who's written to appear as a total coward, so WHY are people chanting him? he comes off as a total dickwad. cody rhodes? seriously? another super boring guy. what's the difference between him and daniel? the super annoying "YES!" chant that daniel stole from diego sanchez?

i'll still tune into raw now and then, and my interest was piqued when the jabroni beatin', pie eatin', trail blazin', eyebrow raisin', most electrifying man in sports entertainment returned, though i doubt he'll be a regular like he was back in the attitude era.

john cena is the worst though. he looks like an all-around nice guy, but he's boring as HELL. extremely boring gimmick, and the WWE gave him that "invincible" persona, where he'll win 95% of the time, making it super predictable. it's ridiculous that this guy gets booed to hell and back yet the WWE refuses to change his character. i know the chances of him turning heel are slim because of all the little kids that look up to him, but it would definitely cause excitement, and i for one would tune in every monday to see what happens.

i know the WWE will never have people like stone cold, the rock, etc. ever again, but that's not really the point. the point is that the WWE needs to realize what made the attitude era so popular. that unpredictability, the crazy storylines, and the bloody matches!

with that being said, i AM glad that lesnar is back, even though many aren't. though i don't like his new MMA gimmick, he's definitely exciting to watch.

 

[#1 Hater]

CM Punk a poor mans Jeff Hardy?

You sir have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Kling Klang]

Stopped taking this post seriously when you said Punk is a poor mans Jeff Hardy.

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

CM Punk a poor mans Jeff Hardy?

You sir have no idea what you're talking about.

well i don't watch wrestling all the time. CM punk to me looks like some punk rocker guy, complete with tattoos and attitude. that's why he reminds me of jeff hardy, except the boring version.

 

[#1 Hater]

well i don't watch wrestling all the time. CM punk to me looks like some punk rocker guy, complete with tattoos and attitude. that's why he reminds me of jeff hardy, except the boring version.

How can you judge a wrestler if you have barely (if at all) seen any of his/her work?

CM Punk is miles ahead of Jeff Hardy in every category. It truly is a joke to compare that one-trick pony to CM Punk.

 

[kingshark]

CM punk? seriously? he's a poor man's jeff hardy, except NO WHERE near as exciting.

I agree with you. Although you are likely to be attacked here because of 2 reasons.

1) Punk is the IWC's darling.
2) WWE fans HATE Jeff Hardy

If you want my honest opinion:

CM Punk > Jeff Hardy in Mic Skills

Jeff Hardy > CM Punk in Charisma

Jeff Hardy > Than anyone in spots. (apart from maybe Mick Foley)

Jeff Hardy is more exciting than Punk.

Jeff Hardy can out-cheer Punk.

Jeff Hardy can make the crowd boo anyone. Hell, the guy could even make Undertaker get booed in the matches they had together.

Now I'm expecting 10 pages of Jeff Hardy bashing. You really should never mention him in the WWE section.

How can you judge a wrestler if you have barely (if at all) seen any of his/her work?

CM Punk is miles ahead of Jeff Hardy in every category. It truly is a joke to compare that one-trick pony to CM Punk.

Obvious ignorance.

Jeff Hardy could easily out-cheer Punk. He had way more charisma.

He was more willing to take risks than anyone in WWE history. (apart from perhaps Mick Foley.

 

[apokalypse]

back then guys have freedom come up their own character/grimmick and input that's why we see many different personality. Plus with their characters it got that genuine look which close to them and fit well for them unlike today so many guys in wrong characters and doesn't have that genuine look to be Super. i put Goldberg as example who got that genuine look in him to be a Big Monster doing fucking squashed match or Mark henry who got that look and character to be big fucking monster no won could touch him which people brought into it.

SuperCena-SuperSheamus-Super Orton doesn't have it factor to be Super and guys like Tensai-Ryder doesn't have that look/charisma to be dominate guy doing fucking squashed matches but with Clay he's just in wrong character.


you need charisma-right character and talent to be Super...Chris Benoit could be one of Super due to his In Ring skills and he able to claim he's the greatest technical wrestler beat any body. the fans see that genuine in him he does have it

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

How can you judge a wrestler if you have barely (if at all) seen any of his/her work?

CM Punk is miles ahead of Jeff Hardy in every category. It truly is a joke to compare that one-trick pony to CM Punk.

are you serious? jeff hardy is by far one of the most exciting wrestlers in history. almost every match he's in is filled with "OMFG" moments. i've seen him a few times on TnA, and he's still got it. i've seen a few of CM punks matches, and i thought it was a good alternative to taking sleeping pills. seriously, what makes him more exciting than jeff hardy? i genuinely would like to know. and i'm talking wrestling ability, not mic skills. jeff hardy is average on the mic.

 

[kingshark]

Jeff Hardy might have been poor on the mic, but he was a charisma machine. Jeff had more charisma in his finger than the entire WWE roster has today. That's why he could out-pop anyone.

Hardy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Punk in excitement and charisma.

 

[JoseDRiveraTCR7]

How is Punk even similar to J Hardy?

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

I agree with you. Although you are likely to be attacked here because of 2 reasons.

1) Punk is the IWC's darling.
2) WWE fans HATE Jeff Hardy

If you want my honest opinion:

CM Punk > Jeff Hardy in Mic Skills

Jeff Hardy > CM Punk in Charisma

Jeff Hardy > Than anyone in spots. (apart from maybe Mick Foley)

Jeff Hardy is more exciting than Punk.

Jeff Hardy can out-cheer Punk.

Jeff Hardy can make the crowd boo anyone. Hell, the guy could even make Undertaker get booed in the matches they had together.

exactly. he takes huge risks, which is what makes him so exciting. from what i've seen of CM punk all he does is some little kicks here and there, and the occasional elbow drop off the turnbuckle.

 

[kingshark]

How is Punk even similar to J Hardy?

They are both about 6'1" tall and both weigh about 215-218 pounds.

Anyway, you can't compare Punk's charisma to Hardy's. Hardy was way more exciting, Punk is already stale.

Likewise, you cannot compare today's pathetic roster to the roster we had 10 years ago.

 

[TheSupremeForce]

Comparing Punk to Hardy in anything but size is idiotic. Ignoring favoritism for a moment, they have completely different gimmicks and skillsets that aren't at all alike. They don't really do anything alike.

I'm with everyone who stopped reading after the failed comparison. Seeing later posts where the OP admits to not even watching came as no surprise.

 

[kingshark]

Comparing Punk to Hardy in anything but size is idiotic. Ignoring favoritism for a moment, they have completely different gimmicks and skillsets that aren't at all alike. They don't really do anything alike.

Didn't Punk "retire" Hardy back in 2009?

Simply because wrestlers aren't clones of each other doesn't mean you can't compare them. I've compared them; Punk needs a mic to be relevant, Jeff doesn't need anything but his music and attire, since he's a charisma machine himself.

 

[BULLY]

I don't see them being too similiar CM punks main gimmick is being straight edge, hardy is quite the opposite.
Hardy is a high flyer whilst CM punk is more of an all round wrestler, but still can go off the top rope if he needs to. The main similaritys is they are of similiar height and tattooed but most wrestlers are inked up anyways.
They are both great wrestlers and I don't think either would mind the comparisons, but I don't think they are that alike.

 

[LINK]

I still watch wrestling in hopes of WWE tying up loose ends as far as stories and waiting for the next big thing.

This has been going on since 2006 now. The only great resolution was Bret/Shawn though. Rock/Cena was interesting and the End of an Era match, but everything else has been pretty bland, predictable and slow in these six years.

In order for WWE to be a better product though, they need to bury the Attitude era. NWO, DX, Rock, Austin and Undertaker all need to have a reasonable ending. Where there is no debate that the shit is over. HBK's end was the closest but even still.

I mean for god's sake, it is 2012. We still mention Hogan, Rock, Austin, HBK and others almost every fucking day. That's like talking about Earl Campbell, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Franco Harris and Larry Csonka everyday, in regards to the NFL. Triple H needs to get out his shovel........

 

[KO Bossy]

Let's not forget one extremely important fact in this little Punk vs Hardy debate-Punk at least acts professional (as opposed to Jeff who has shown up to how many events stoned out of his mind?). That right there means a lot.

Face it, Jeff is just a glorified spot monkey. That's why people love him. They watch his matches and cheer him because they know he's going to do something extremely damaging to himself. Coincidentally, the pain he took from these bumps was what helped fuel his drug addictions, which directly affects my first point.

I say both are pretty exciting to watch.

But the point of the thread is correct-wrestlers today are by in large very stale. Just look at the face of the Fed.

 

[Post-Modern Devil]

If you can't honestly tell the difference between Daniel Bryan and Cody Rhodes you really should just shut up. There's saying both characters don't interest you at all and then there's just being completely superficial. That goes double for the Hardy/CM Punk comparison, what kind of halfwit tries to determine whether someone is charismatic or not primarily by subjective comparisons?

This is coming from someone who dislikes the current product. Whether or not you have a point, don't make points like some ****ing idiot and actually try to post a coherent, intelligently thought out rant/argument.

 

[Vyed]

CM Punk a poor mans Jeff Hardy?

Yes he is.

Hardy was never this stale and certainly not in such a short time. Op is right.

 

[Chicago Warrior]

Jikes CM Punk compared to Jeff Hardy? Don't insult Punk. Do you have any favorites other than Lesnar?