Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 3, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 3, 2011 Here's more CM Punk comments coming out of the world of wrestling. This time from our very own COO. Thought I'd put it here, instead of the comments section: People don't pay just to see wrestlers, they pay to see stars, larger-than-life athletes, heroes and villains. Stuff they cant see in their own backyard. Punk misses the boat on Kevin Nash, and I'm not saying this to side with my friend, but Punk does look like the short order cook at Waffle House.I like Waffle House too, but I'm not sure I want to watch the cook. You can be the greatest at what you do. There has been a lot of phenomenal wrestlers. Ricky Steamboat was one of the best ever. But if he wasn't in a match with Ric Flair, tell me what else he headlined?And this isn't a knock on Ricky, he's phenomenal. Punk's mentality is 'Do what I like.' He likes legit, technically gifted, skilled wrestlers. The fact is I do, too. I agree with what he's saying. Is John Cena the best technical wrestler? Absolutely not. Neither was Hogan, neither was Austin, neither was Mick Foley, neither was the Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 And that's from the COO of the top wrestling company in the world. The other cowardly shitehawk writing in was either Vince McMahon or a "successful booker" who's booked a wrestling company into oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkship Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'd make an effort if I were them to sprinkle in some older faces and especially some female faces (not strippers, not models) just for the generic look as part of a long term effort. Even a few 11, 12 year olds. But nobody asked me. LOL Which is fine. Â Wanting to see 12-year-olds? Saying LOL? Good to see Rob Feinstein writing in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted October 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 3, 2011 Well this is where it gets tough, and I think I've phrased myself poorly. It should've done good numbers for the rematch, rather than summerslam. It' not just about rushing punk back, but also Vince getting fired, the tournament etc. Aye, extending it further is the tough bit. If they just went with the tournament leading to Cena vs Mysterio at SummerSlam, they'd have to promote that as a big match, which means ignoring Punk. People who are only interested in Punk might lose interest until he comes back. Considering how big a part of the show Punk was when he "left", every week until his return would almost definitely seem like filler. Cena vs Mysterio should have been a big PPV draw though, and it was a waste to do it on Raw. I just don't know if doing it at SummerSlam with the shadow of Punk hanging over it would've been much better. I think they certainly could've done it if they made a point of keeping the shadow of punk over the whole thing. Have them bring out a different belt because Punk stole one. Have people occasionally talk about him, let it sink in a bit. I'm not saying it would've made things the best angle evar, but it would've given it more of a chance. They were actualyl doing a decent job by having him turn up places with the title and act the douche, they just needed to take that a step further. It would require some finesse, but they showed the potential to do it. Â As it is they rushed him back for summerslam, which drew fuck all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotlightmagnet1 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'm afraid HHH is right, although Steamboat has headlined against Rick Rude and Vader with awesome results. But Punk I believe does have something that sets him apart from other indie wrestlers, he will never be as big as Steve Austin but I think he could fall into that Randy Savage/ Bret Hart category if they don't just drop him like a brick right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 3, 2011 CM Punk isnt some greenhorn from developmental. You can't give him that kind of time to get himself over. He's already over, that's not what it's about. If you want to take someone from being an occasional main eventer and make them a legitimate, money drawing superstar then it takes just as much time and patience as taking someone fresh and getting them over. They put him over for a few weeks. As someone pointed out, he was the unimportant leader of the dull Nexus for most of the year. What did they do to get the mass audience to love him? Fuck all. So instead of packing it in because the "internet" aimed storyline didn't affect the ratings, why not look at the flaws in it, which have been pointed out plenty. Â Punk is a world class talker, an outstanding wrestler, he's unique and he has reasonable support amongst the existing audience. He's worth persevering with. Let's face it, they don't have stars coming out of their ears do they? They have one draw and a few other established support acts. They can't afford to give up on people like Punk and Miz and Truth. They need to make them a big part of a show that is compelling week after week after week. They are fucking stupid if they think differently. Also, if they expect people to pay for one match shows and then blame the people in the one match when it bombs, they are equally stupid. Â If he was as good as people say he is, why are the interviews that he has the most amount of input in so off putting to the mass audience? I'm not talking about his material. If he came up with it and it bombs, then I'm not going to defend it. I'm talking about him as a pro-wrestler, something he's very good at. There was no reason to give up on his push other than impatience, lack of understanding and perhaps smug satisfaction from people who wanted it to fail? That's speculation but it wouldn't surprise me. Â Is that tosh from Trips something written in or out of character? I don't actually disagree with him but the point it completely misses is that the guys like Hogan and Flair and Austin and Rock just don't exist anymore. The WWE have one (mild) draw. They aren't in a position to dismiss anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 3, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 3, 2011 He's already over, that's not what it's about. If you want to take someone from being an occasional main eventer and make them a legitimate, money drawing superstar then it takes just as much time and patience as taking someone fresh and getting them over. They put him over for a few weeks. As someone pointed out, he was the unimportant leader of the dull Nexus for most of the year. What did they do to get the mass audience to love him? Fuck all. They put him over for a few weeks and the initial buzz didn't generate into anything note worthy at the box office. In fact the only noteworthy bit of mainstream press they got out of it (without having to pay for it of course) was when he called someone a "faggot" at a house show. He couldn't have went into Money In the Bank looking better. What you are failing to remember is that plenty of wrestlers would have done far better with the same build. Hundreds of wrestlers have been put in situations where you have to turn chicken shit into a chicken sarnie. After all the pushing they did in the media, after all the television time they gave him and how they put him over like a million quid at the pay-per-view and people still think he's hard done by. You dont get the type of hype they gave Punk in this era. Edge got his WWE title taken off him after 3 weeks in 2006, and that was after drawing huge ratings for the standard of the time. He continued to deliver stellar promos and act like a pro in angles. Just because they "arent pushing you" doesnt excuse you from how rotten the wrestlers promos have been and how you carry yourself. Â So instead of packing it in because the "internet" aimed storyline didn't affect the ratings, why not look at the flaws in it, which have been pointed out plenty. Why doesnt, instead, he look at his own flaws and conform to the WWE's way of presenting a star? Insider references, shit gelled hair and unlikable facials aren't going to endear you to the mainstream audience, whether its 1985, 1998 or 2011. Â Punk is a world class talker, an outstanding wrestler, he's unique and he has reasonable support amongst the existing audience. He's a good talker, yes, a decent wrestler, but he is far from unique and if he had reasonable support, where are they? Depending on which town he goes to, the audience aren't there for him at all. He's the opposite of Cena. Cena gets mixed reactions and draws. Punk either gets a hot vocal minority or you hear crickets chirping like like that press conference from a few weeks ago. Rob Van Dam had the support of the vocal minority in 2001, but he was never on par with Austin, Rock or even a Kurt Angle at the time. Â He's worth persevering with. Let's face it, they don't have stars coming out of their ears do they? They have one draw and a few other established support acts. They can't afford to give up on people like Punk and Miz and Truth. They need to make them a big part of a show that is compelling week after week after week. They are fucking stupid if they think differently. Also, if they expect people to pay for one match shows and then blame the people in the one match when it bombs, they are equally stupid. They arent giving up on the likes of Truth Punk and Miz. They have been in prominent positions on the show for a while. Â What did they do to get the mass audience to love him? Fuck all. He slaughtered Vince McMahon for a good 20 minutes and Vince just sat there doing his facial expressions. John Cena put him over on the microphone countless times. He beat the WWE champion in the middle and left with the belt. Also, worth pointing out he had a degree of unprecedented control over that storyline as well. If he had any better ideas he should have spoke up. Â I'm not talking about his material. If he came up with it and it bombs, then I'm not going to defend it. I'm talking about him as a pro-wrestler, something he's very good at. There was no reason to give up on his push other than impatience, lack of understanding and perhaps smug satisfaction from people who wanted it to fail? That's speculation but it wouldn't surprise me. They havent given up on his push though. He's main evented the last four pay-per-views and will probably be in the main event of Survivor Series as well. They are continuing with it in the hope that something decent will happen in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted October 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 3, 2011 All day. You'd watch him and think "I know people like him. And I like people like him". I see Punk pissing and moaning and whinging and I think "I know people like him. I can't abide those fuckers." I cannot relate to Punk as a babyface on any level. Â Couldn't agree more. Â I'm also unsure how the man on the street can relate to someone who lives 'straight edge'. Let's be honest, it's a pretty geeky lifestyle choice to begin with isn't it? Also his promos want to make me smack him in the chops. There's a difference between a smart arse and being clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Here's more CM Punk comments coming out of the world of wrestling. This time from our very own COO. Thought I'd put it here, instead of the comments section: People don't pay just to see wrestlers, they pay to see stars, larger-than-life athletes, heroes and villains. Stuff they cant see in their own backyard. Punk misses the boat on Kevin Nash, and I'm not saying this to side with my friend, but Punk does look like the short order cook at Waffle House. I like Waffle House too, but I'm not sure I want to watch the cook. You can be the greatest at what you do. There has been a lot of phenomenal wrestlers. Ricky Steamboat was one of the best ever. But if he wasn't in a match with Ric Flair, tell me what else he headlined?  And this isn't a knock on Ricky, he's phenomenal. Punk's mentality is 'Do what I like.' He likes legit, technically gifted, skilled wrestlers. The fact is I do, too. I agree with what he's saying. Is John Cena the best technical wrestler? Absolutely not. Neither was Hogan, neither was Austin, neither was Mick Foley, neither was the Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I have to say I find a lot of the attitudes we're hearing quite depressing and self-defeating. I find myself siding with Rick on the idea of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater as soon as something doesn't take off immediately, but rather trying to improve on it and iron out the flaws. Â I really think it's a case of the WWE higher ups not knowing whether to stick or twist: on the one hand they seem antsy about the shit TV ratings and mediocre buy rates the last several years of creative atrophy have produced; on the other, they seem unwilling to gamble on any sustained change of direction for fear of losing even those mediocre returns. What we ultimately end up with is a status quo that neither those in charge or those watching seem particularly thrilled with. The bottom line is the formulaic monotony and bottled pushes that have characterised the last few years have left an audience of floating voters who are more than justified in taking a 'buyer beware' attitude to any apparent 'new direction' from the company. Â I personally find the idea of giving up on a push or an angle because it hasn't made millions straight out of the block incredibly counter-productive, but if they're so set on sticking with the formula because it keeps the shareholders satisfied, fine. They just have to accept that wrestling will never catch fire again, and the ratings and buy rates you're getting now are probably the absolute best you can hope for with Cena and Orton and the current lot. Unless someone like Rock or Austin from back when wrestling was good turns up for a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 People forget that Punk was only built up for a month leading to MITB. Who ever got that over when a company spent a month trying to make somebody a main eventer? Previous to that infamous shoot promo, Punk was regularly tapping out to Cena on Raw and was constantly portrayed as a level below the top talent. Yes, Punk has flaws but you can't make anybody in two months. To the common fan, not only was Punk saying stuff they didn't know about but the key for me was most were wondering why Cena suddenly feared Punk, considering he'd handily beaten him on numerous occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Total Package Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Didnt Punk get a massive push in 2008/9? I wasn't watching those years but I heard him and Jeff were the main guys on SD!, so in that case its not the first time they gave him the ball and for whatever reason it didnt work (again I heard he pissed taker off somehow).I wish RVD and BookerT could have got a crap push like CM Punk did, yet at their peaks they were still more over than Punk.While I agree WWE shouldn't just give up on stuff, I dont think you can really fault WWE for not having much faith in CM Punk.Their Nexus idea from last year was far better imo and they should not have fed them to Cena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Yeah, it's a fallacy that Punk was never pushed prior to June. He won his first world title three years before all the "pipe bombs." He'd won Money in the Bank twice before going on about ice cream bars. He'd feuded with and had victories over JBL, Jeff Hardy, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, John Cena and Randy Orton. He'd led two factions that were often focal points of the TV shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Yeah, it's a fallacy that Punk was never pushed prior to June. He won his first world title three years before all the "pipe bombs." He'd won Money in the Bank twice before going on about ice cream bars. He'd feuded with and had victories over JBL, Jeff Hardy, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, John Cena and Randy Orton. He'd led two factions that were often focal points of the TV shows.No doubt he has been pushed before, but he's never been given the type of protection that you need to become an established top line talent. During his first Title reign he was treated like a fluke champ, beaten clean on TV too much and was often playing second or third fiddle to Cena, Batista or Triple H. He didn't even drop the belt to anyone properly, making the whole thing very forgettable. When he came back, he happily jumped into a tag team in the midcard.His feud with Hardy was ace, and I think that's where a lot of people realised he was possibly more than just a midcarder. That's the only feud that's he's actually won though, and that was only because Hardy left the company. He beat the Taker via Ref screwjob, then got killed in The Cell a month later. When Punk feuded with Rey and JBL, they were upper-midcarders too, rather than the real Stars, like H, Batista and Cena.That's part of the problem now; they've had Cena bigging Punk up and acted threatened by him, but there is little reason why. Punk has laid down for half the roster over the last 2 years. Mostly in the midcard. Big wins over big stars at main event attractions will make a new star, not flukey MITB wins and lip service from Cena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Here's more CM Punk comments coming out of the world of wrestling. This time from our very own COO. Thought I'd put it here, instead of the comments section: People don't pay just to see wrestlers, they pay to see stars, larger-than-life athletes, heroes and villains. Stuff they cant see in their own backyard. Punk misses the boat on Kevin Nash, and I'm not saying this to side with my friend, but Punk does look like the short order cook at Waffle House.I like Waffle House too, but I'm not sure I want to watch the cook. You can be the greatest at what you do. There has been a lot of phenomenal wrestlers. Ricky Steamboat was one of the best ever. But if he wasn't in a match with Ric Flair, tell me what else he headlined?And this isn't a knock on Ricky, he's phenomenal. Punk's mentality is 'Do what I like.' He likes legit, technically gifted, skilled wrestlers. The fact is I do, too. I agree with what he's saying. Is John Cena the best technical wrestler? Absolutely not. Neither was Hogan, neither was Austin, neither was Mick Foley, neither was the Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.