I honestly don't see Shawn's competition as better. Aside from feuding with a Steve Austin who was just hitting his stride, I tend to find that Shawn's competition gets grossly overrated on account of hindsight bias.
Let's take a quick look at his feuds as champion.
Diesel: just coming off a year long run with the belt and definitely not overrated.
Bulldog: yeah he meant nothing at this point and I've got nothing there.
Vader: monster and I believe undefeated coming into Summerslam. While not as great as he once was, he was still a big deal then.
Mankind: had recently broken up Undertaker and Bearer and a killing machine at this point.
Sid: I believe the only man to ever beat Bret and Shawn in title matches in back to back months. That's a big deal for 1996.
Austin: already covered.
Undertaker: big deal.
Other than Bulldog and arguably Sid, that's some pretty strong competition.
I hope the implication here isn't that a heel turn helped Punk.
It got him into the main event scene after six months of being second fiddle.
Because his feud with Bryan was easily the biggest thing the company had going into MITB and he was still generating thunderous face responses and fat merch sales.
Yet he still wasn't the top deal in the company. The Cena vs. Ace feud, while boring as tar, did draw good numbers for Over the Limit.
The heel turn cast Punk in a different light where he didn't need to be under Cena as a face any more, but I don't think it made him a bigger deal.
It wasn't a great heel turn but it got him up to the main event level and into matches against better competition.
I've never bought Bret as a megastar. The screwjob and the Canada vs US stuff raised his stock higher than it ever was for most of his career, but I think he's a guy who benefits a lot from people looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses.
As a wrestling historian, and I'm not a fan of going with that but it's the best I've got here, all I can say is that's incorrect. Bret was indeed a big deal and a solid draw as champion both in America and Internationally. There's really no way around that. He was the top guy in the company for a few years and one of the biggest names ever. Now, he's definitely lower than Hogan, Austin, Rock etc, but at the time he was the biggest thing in the company.
Yes and no. Ryback was easily the hottest thing in the company at a point and a smarter booker probably would have put him over Punk. He didn't sustain his momentum, but Punk surviving his initial push is as big a deal as many of HBK's biggest victories.
I can't buy that. It's not insane but I can't go with it. Ryback hadn't won a single big match yet and looks more like a flop every time he loses another big match, which makes Punk beating him look even less impressive.
As far as I know, Mysterio has never lost to HBK. As far as I know, Hardy is also undefeated against Michaels. As for Edge, Shawn lost to a pre-prime Edge at the Rumble in 2005. Meanwhile, a pre-prime Punk beat a prime Edge in 2009. I'd say Punk's got an edge there.
Shawn beat Mysterio in a Survivor Series match.
Jeff....you might be right on that actually.
As for Edge, I'd argue that even in his prime a win over him means very little whatsoever. If there has ever been a guy overrated and inflated by meaningless title wins, it's him.
This is far from an open and shut case, as the 2009 WZ tournament will attest to.
Please....don't make me think about that monstrosity again.
Diesel had strong competition? That's news to me.
Bret and Shawn would be a good place to start. Sid wasn't bad either.
I'd take Hardy over Diesel any day of the week. Clean wins over Trips, HBK, Edge, and even Punk mean more to me than Diesel barely drawing against Bret and laying out Mabel.
I'd take Diesel being champion for a year over Hardy's drug induced insanity but Jeff probably does hvae some stronger wins.
And yet look at the company that Diesel, HBK, and Bret dominated. In that sense, I think you give the champions of yesteryear too much credit.
And I think you give Chicago WAY too much credit.
In an indy context, Raven was a big deal and Punk was a nobody at the time. It was a major draw for ROH. Pretending it means nothing because Raven didn't pan out in the WWF misses the point.
In an indy context, Brent Albright beat Punk for the OVW Title. Indy wrestling can be questionable at best sometimes.
I'll just roll my eyes at this bit and move on.
When Hogan takes another unfortunately ladder match loss this year, hopefully you can take solace in the fact that he didn't really lose.
If this were a ladder match I'd agree. It isn't though, which is why those matches mean little. Then again this is mostlyt he same audience that though Punk would beat Andre in a TLC match so hope may be lost on them.
Considering the circumstances of the Taker win, no. Not even remotely.
That's laughable. Even a win over a distracted Undertaker means more than a win over Del Rio and Miz in 2011.
Will Undertaker be distracting Punk to give Michaels his victory here?
Oh, no? Great. Moving on.
No. Shawn will be taking Punk out, as he did to almost everyone else he ever faced, even in Chicago.
He essentially fought Triple H to a draw at Night of Champions (the match was dead even before interference fucked everything up).
The fact that Punk couldn't even get past a draw against an over the hill HHH says enough to me.
Jericho and Bryan owe much of their style to Shawn and Punk's put them both down in these kinds of matches.
So because Punk can beat some students he can beat the master? That makes no sense.
Jeff Hardy is an expert in TLC.
He's also winless in said matches.
Mark Henry went down to Punk in No Holds Barred mere months after his Hall of Pain title reign.
As did Diesel to Shawn, months after a much longer reign.
And on the indies, Raven was top talent and great seasoning for a young Punk.
Whatever you think Punk is lacking in terms of competition, he isn't.
Besides, Chicago is the difference maker. Advantage: Punk.
Someone sign this Chicago kid. It's more over than anyone else in history.
