Un-named Successful booker speaks out about various shit

[King Pitcos]

Depends which one of them was around when the writing was as desperate and erratic as it is now.

That sort of logic doesn't hold up, because if we believe that everything bad is down to the evil writer monkeys, then Cena and Orton are the best wrestlers ever for succeeding in spite of them. And that's bollocks, which is why we only blame the writers when wrestlers we like do poorly. When wrestlers we don't like do something shit, it's their own fault.It'd take a div to think that Punk is just following orders anyway. Same as any wrestler, if they give him chicken shit, he can either change it or try and make chicken salad. This is particularly true of the main event set, which is why Cena doesn't deserve any free passes for the corny shite he comes out with.Plus, it was that same desperate and erratic writing that had people on here jizzing back when Punk was sat on the stage talking about the doofus son-in-law.

Of course, every single case is unique anyways, whether it be Austin, Rock, Punk, Riley, Funaki or Gail Kim.

Exactly. Which is why Punk's thing -- predicated on how he hadn't yet been the main man and him voicing the opinions that unsatisfied fans shared -- should've worked from the get-go, regardless of whether he'd lost to Randy Orton in the spring.

I personally think that CM Punk's natural arrogance is just too much for me. It was good in a short term push, but with more and more of him, I can't ever see myself buying into him. That's what seperates him from most other big babyfaces in my opinion. Many of them were cocky, sure, but there's a difference between cockyness and arrogance.

A lot of people on here talk about Punk being too arrogant to be a successful babyface, and I don't really buy that, at least not in terms of putting it all on the arrogance. There are very few wrestlers who've been as arrogant as The Rock. And yeah, Rock is a special case, but to hear anyone talk earlier in the summer, so is Punk. It shouldn't matter that much if the cult of personality thing is really there. And Punk should be very different in demeanor from Cena and even Orton. I think the difference is with Rock and Austin, there was an action-hero bad-assery to their smugness, whereas with Punk he's just a smarmy prick with insider references. And he looks like a weedy sex offender trying to disguise themselves as Dave2Tone. I think you're right that Punk's qualities worked better for a short-term thing, because his act wore thin after MITB. But the thing is, even in the short-term it didn't meet expectations. And to their credit, they are still trying to keep him up there. He's main-evented four PPVs in a row and gets as much time on Raw as anyone else besides HHH.

[ColinBollocks]

How is it that The Rock got absolutely leathered by Austin every time they fought and had to be given the Intercontinental title, yet excelled when he became world champion less than a year later (and a month after losing to then-nobody Mark Henry on pay-per-view at that)?

You can't compare the time period to now. When The Rock won his first WWE title it was during WWEs hottest period, the hotter the product the easier it is to make stars. People forget that The Rock was always positioned below Austin (during his first WWF title run) and it wasn't Austin v The Rock in 1999 it was Austin v The Corporation, which The Rock was part of. During the time from Survivor Series to 'Mania The Rock was going over Mick Foley (a big star), they BUILT him up for Austin, they didn't have The Rock turn up before a hot feud. Look at Triple H, it took him killing poor Mick Foley to finally get accepted as a proper main eventer, that's months and months. If Triple H came along now, they'd have him drop it to Cena within a month. Triple H was a JTTS but WWE spent months trying to get him over as a top heel, even when business was hot it took some doing to finally get fans to accept Triple H. Still they didn't rush it in a month.I'm not sure on the Edge thing. I wasn't watching then.

Punk has been a featured character long enough and had ample screentime that expectations were far higher for his summer run. Both internally and from the people on here who thought he'd be bigger than Cena and have now decided it didn't have the desired impact because he wasn't squashing Cena and Orton every week for the last twelve months. And the people who moan about "clean wins" and Punk not being treated like Cena prior to this summer are forgetting that if he had been, he wouldn't have been able to do those memorable promos in the first place. The voice of the voiceless stuff doesn't go down too well if you are tantamount to Cena.

Nobody on here has ever said he needed to look like Goldberg, but that you can't expect to make somebody a money draw in a month, especially when the business is stone cold right now. If you read my post you'll noticed I said it's part of the problem, not all of it. A few weeks before his Cena feud, WWE were having him look like a goof.

[tiger_rick]

which is why we only blame the writers when wrestlers we like do poorly.

Load of shit.

[King Pitcos]

You compared Punk to Edge, right? Even though Edge was supposed to be a woman-stealing, cheap-tactics using, scumbag heel. Of course he didn't need clean wins over Stars to get that type of gimmick over. Punk is supposed to be a Face, but when a Face can't beat people they are pretty much screwed.Magnum, Blackson and Kenny have all looked at things a bit more reasonably and agreed that up until MITB Punk's character was shit hot, but the booking since then has been very muddled.

And yet Punk's character -- making smarmy insider references and having a go at the boss -- hasn't changed.

If you insist on having a comparison, then Diesel in 95 is a reasonable one. Pushed as a heel (but a cool as fuck, bad-ass one) for the build-up to his face turn and split from Michaels, but then as soon as they pulled the trigger, they got rid of the coolness that people actually liked, and turned him into a smiley douche.

What has WWE removed from Punk's character? Nothing -- there are people arguing that that's the reason he's a shit top babyface. The thing is that character peaked at MITB (which didn't do anywhere near as well as Punk's most fervent fans thought it would) because after that, it was all going to be downhill when he was no longer the vocal renegade leaving with the title. It's similar to Benoit in a way, in that the story of winning the title could never be matched by the aftermath. The difference is Punk has a lot more to offer going forward than Benoit ever did, and Benoit's Cinderella story drew a lot more money.

[Dirty Eddie]

Depends which one of them was around when the writing was as desperate and erratic as it is now.

That sort of logic doesn't hold up, because if we believe that everything bad is down to the evil writer monkeys, then Cena and Orton are the best wrestlers ever for succeeding in spite of them. And that's bollocks, which is why we only blame the writers when wrestlers we like do poorly. When wrestlers we don't like do something shit, it's their own fault.

Cena received the Hulk Hogan push. That's why he became a superstar. Even then, there is still a huge chunk of the audience that doesn't like him.How long did it take Orton to become a genuine main eventer? A failed early face run as champ, a couple of years of being called "Mr Headlock" while being called too dull, flipping from Face to Heel and having very average feuds. It's only in the last 6 months that Orton has really started to look and carry himself like a superstar, and been accepted that way by the fans. They have persevered with Orton for years now. Once again, nobody becomes a money-drawing headliner in a couple of months.And yet Punk's character -- making smarmy insider references and having a go at the boss -- hasn't changed.The people he was directing his anger at changed though, that's the point.He went from ragging on Cena (who a third of all audiences, at least, enjoy booing) and Vince McMahon, the evil prick boss, to feuding with a very popular Triple H (who had just returned from months off) and the returning Nash, who older fans liked and young fans didn't really seem to react to.

[King Pitcos]

You can't compare the time period to now.

Of course you can, people compare the attitude era to now all the time. If there was a "no comparisons to the attitude era allowed" rule, John Cena would be the undisputed best babyface of the last eighteen years. But we're all more than happy to discuss Austin and Rock's merits against Cena's, and Hogan's against all of them (not Sammartino's though, the boring old cunt). WWE is happy to present The Rock doing "it was better in my day" promos. We compare wrestlers from different eras all the time. Circumstances change, details change, but a superstar's a superstar.

When The Rock won his first WWE title it was during WWEs hottest period, the hotter the product the easier it is to make stars.

And the harder it is to stand out from the pack. In a hotter period, maybe Punk's promos don't get noticed as much as they do when stood against a more vanilla, flat product.

People forget that The Rock was always positioned below Austin (during his first WWF title run) and it wasn't Austin v The Rock in 1999 it was Austin v The Corporation, which The Rock was part of.

Nobody's forgotten that. People just don't use it as an excuse for why Rock wasn't a star -- because being positioned below Austin didn't stop him from being a star.

During the time from Survivor Series to 'Mania The Rock was going over Mick Foley (a big star), they BUILT him up for Austin, they didn't have The Rock turn up before a hot feud.

Rock also lost the title to Foley twice, and won it all three times in that run by cheating (two of those times by the McMahons screwing Foley and faking the finishes, once by Big Show chokeslamming Foley off a ladder). And yet, when Rock turned main-event babyface, nobody was going "oh that won't work, he needs six months of CLEAN WINS~ first." Because it didn't matter.

Look at Triple H, it took him killing poor Mick Foley to finally get accepted as a proper main eventer, that's months and months. If Triple H came along now, they'd have him drop it to Cena within a month. Triple H was a JTTS but WWE spent months trying to get him over as a top heel, even when business was hot it took some doing to finally get fans to accept Triple H.

To accept Triple H in what sense? I've read that a lot (probably in PowerSlam) and I'm not sure what is meant by it. Were ratings and buyrates down between SummerSlam '99 and the next Rumble, or is it based on crowd reactions to him only picking up during the Foley feud or what?

Nobody on here has ever said he needed to look like Goldberg, but that you can't expect to make somebody a money draw in a month, especially when the business is stone cold right now. If you read my post you'll noticed I said it's part of the problem, not all of it. A few weeks before his Cena feud, WWE were having him look like a goof.

And that was part of the storyline, wasn't it? It was completely geared to people who go "they push Cena too much, they should push Punk more." The only problem with it was there were less of those people willing to put their hand in their pocket than WWE thought.If Punk had been Cena's equal for ages, there would've been a completely different (and less intriguing) dynamic to the feud and match. Punk's promos would've either been different because he couldn't talk about being "held down" or they'd have come off phoney because he hadn't been "held down." It would've been a more generic main event WWE feud, rather than the starmaker it was conceived as.

[King Pitcos]

Cena received the Hulk Hogan push. That's why he became a superstar.

So someone becomes a superstar through no fault/ability of their own?

How long did it take Orton to become a genuine main eventer? A failed early face run as champ, a couple of years of being called "Mr Headlock" while being called too dull, flipping from Face to Heel and having very average feuds. It's only in the last 6 months that Orton has really started to look and carry himself like a superstar, and been accepted that way by the fans. They have persevered with Orton for years now. Once again, nobody becomes a money-drawing headliner in a couple of months.

Six months after Orton's first title win, people were buying him as a strong contender to ending Undertaker's streak. And Orton himself will readily admit that he fucked up nigh-on every opportunity he had by being a drugged-up fuckwit.A lot of the things you've mentioned there -- "Mr Headlock", being dull, not carrying himself like a superstar -- are faults with Orton's ability. So are you saying that Punk's not good enough yet to be a superstar? Or are wrestlers still absolved of any responsibility for their own performances?Plus WWE never had a concentrated spell where they put Orton out there for media appearances like they did with Punk in July. Talk shows, radio, baseball games where he got laughed at because the commentators couldn't believe he was a world champion wrestler. And none of it did anything.

He went from ragging on Cena (who a third of all audiences, at least, enjoy booing) and Vince McMahon, the evil prick boss, to feuding with a very popular Triple H (who had just returned from months off) and the returning Nash, who older fans liked and young fans didn't really seem to react to.

I don't know what point you're making here. The ratings didn't skyrocket for his promos on Cena, are you saying that if he'd just done that for another several months they would have?

[tiger_rick]

And yet, when Rock turned main-event babyface, nobody was going "oh that won't work, he needs six months of CLEAN WINS~ first." Because it didn't matter.

The most charismatic wrestler there has ever been turning babyface during the hottest period in wrestling history. I wonder why it didn't matter?

[King Pitcos]

The second most charismatic wrestler there has ever been turning babyface during a cold period when fans are crying out for a new babyface who reads the Observer.

[Dirty Eddie]

Cena received the Hulk Hogan push. That's why he became a superstar.

So someone becomes a superstar through no fault/ability of their own?

How long did it take Orton to become a genuine main eventer? A failed early face run as champ, a couple of years of being called "Mr Headlock" while being called too dull, flipping from Face to Heel and having very average feuds. It's only in the last 6 months that Orton has really started to look and carry himself like a superstar, and been accepted that way by the fans. They have persevered with Orton for years now. Once again, nobody becomes a money-drawing headliner in a couple of months.

Six months after Orton's first title win, people were buying him as a strong contender to ending Undertaker's streak. And Orton himself will readily admit that he fucked up nigh-on every opportunity he had by being a drugged-up fuckwit.A lot of the things you've mentioned there -- "Mr Headlock", being dull, not carrying himself like a superstar -- are faults with Orton's ability. So are you saying that Punk's not good enough yet to be a superstar? Or are wrestlers still absolved of any responsibility for their own performances?Plus WWE never had a concentrated spell where they put Orton out there for media appearances like they did with Punk in July. Talk shows, radio, baseball games where he got laughed at because the commentators couldn't believe he was a world champion wrestler. And none of it did anything.

He went from ragging on Cena (who a third of all audiences, at least, enjoy booing) and Vince McMahon, the evil prick boss, to feuding with a very popular Triple H (who had just returned from months off) and the returning Nash, who older fans liked and young fans didn't really seem to react to.

I don't know what point you're making here. The ratings didn't skyrocket for his promos on Cena, are you saying that if he'd just done that for another several months they would have?

Of course you only become a star if you have ability and talent, don't be so facetious, but without the mega-push, Cena would have stayed in the midcard, like everyone else. You can't honestly think that dozens of other people were given the same level of push and protection, and Cena just happened to be the only one talented enough to make it. They pushed him to the fucking moon!Orton was on fire when he punted all the McMahon's about and became an evil mentailist, but the poor booking that followed (a Shane McMahon feud) killed his cool, badass character dead. he was a victim of poor booking then, and it took time to recover. That had nothing to do with Orton's drug taking or attitude, just shitty booking. You could argue that Punk had a similar thing going on, with the reactions he was getting, but that momentum has stalled due to poor follow-up writing.As for the ratings thing, why are you so obsessed? So Punk's promo didn't sent the ratings through the roof. Nothing does that overnight. But perhaps if they had kept on with his renegade champion story (rather than having him "sign a new contract" and then lose the belt) they might have created another solid, permanent main eventer. They'll already elevated him to one of the top merch sellers in the company, so it's not like this experiment has been the total failure you are making out it is.

[tiger_rick]

The second most charismatic wrestler there has ever been turning babyface during a cold period when fans are crying out for a new babyface who reads the Observer.

Steve Austin reads the Observer?

[FLips]

He means Mitch from the Spirit Squad.

[King Pitcos]

Of course you only become a star if you have ability and talent, don't be so facetious, but without the mega-push, Cena would have stayed in the midcard, like everyone else. You can't honestly think that dozens of other people were given the same level of push and protection, and Cena just happened to be the only one talented enough to make it. They pushed him to the fucking moon!

Did he win a lottery to get that push?

Orton was on fire when he punted all the McMahon's about and became an evil mentailist, but the poor booking that followed (a Shane McMahon feud) killed his cool, badass character dead. he was a victim of poor booking then, and it took time to recover. That had nothing to do with Orton's drug taking or attitude, just shitty booking.

Two things come to mind:1. Were you not joking when you said nobody saw Orton as a main-eventer until six months ago then?2. Has John Cena's booking been flawless for the last seven years?

You could argue that Punk had a similar thing going on, with the reactions he was getting, but that momentum has stalled due to poor follow-up writing.

You could, but not if you looked at the numbers.

As for the ratings thing, why are you so obsessed? So Punk's promo didn't sent the ratings through the roof. Nothing does that overnight.

It's all well and good to blindly defend our favourite wrestlers, but if we're going to pretend that a wrestler's level of stardom is based on our own enjoyment of them rather than their actual level of success, what's the point?

But perhaps if they had kept on with his renegade champion story (rather than having him "sign a new contract" and then lose the belt) they might have created another solid, permanent main eventer.

Don't be a lemon. There's no sign that he isn't another solid, permanent main eventer. Like I had to remind you the other day, Punk's main-evented the last four pay-per-views. He's not wrestling JTG on Superstars. He's been in the main segments on TV, he's been making as many high-profile media appearances as anyone else. Punk hasn't been pushed down the card, he's just been involved in a lot of stuff that's shite and hasn't drawn. But there's no indication at all that WWE has given up on him.The whining that he came back is pointless. It's not the 1980s, or even the can-do-no-wrong of the 1990s. They've got pay-per-views to sell every few weeks and TV shows to sell advertising for every Monday night. If the main storyline for months on end is a bloke who doesn't work there and doesn't want to be there, that's not possible. At least with Miz and R-Truth, they can still turn up and try to get in because they were sacked and want to be part of the show.

They'll already elevated him to one of the top merch sellers in the company,

And that's a good thing. I'm sure you'll agree, anyone who sells shitloads of t-shirts is not only doing something right, but is a deserving and excellent main event babyface.

so it's not like this experiment has been the total failure you are making out it is.

Then what are you blaming the writers for again? Of course it hasn't been a total failure, but it's been a big disappointment on both a business and critical level.

[Dirty Eddie]

No, Cena didn't win a lottery, he fit the look that Vince's loves and he was a damn hard worker that caused no trouble and represented the company well. I don't "hate" Cena, despite what you seem to think, but I can also see clearly that no-one has had anything like the constant monster push and protection he has had for 7 years. Obviously Cena's booking hasn't been flawless, that's why 30% of the WWE audience boo's him. I said that Orton didn't feel like a true, megastar main eventer, like Cena, Triple H, Batista, Undertaker etc... He's only just getting into that role now, I think, thanks to consistent booking.What they are doing with Miz and Truth could easily be done with Punk holding the title. All it would take is a little tweaking, you are bending facts to fit your opinion.I am not arguing the fact that Punk has been elevated and is doing pretty well for himself, but it annoys me when people (almost smugly) try to put all the blame on him for the angle cooling off. I'm not saying everything he has done has been perfect, but it's the booking that has let this whole angle down. Around MITB time, everyone was buzzing about the TV product, but already things have turned into a hotshotted mess, with the fans not really knowing who to cheer.

[digforvictory]

I've enjoyed this thread and I think both sides of the argument make good points but I fall into the Tiger Rick school of thought in thinking that if they have lost faith in Punk because he didn't immediately the business alight that that is crazy. The WWE have been really guilty of stop start pushes and as someone pointed out before it's the mid card that has really suffered. Guys like Kofi Kingston and Jack Swagger constantly seem to be on their way to the main event before being dragged down again or left in limbo. In fact Swagger is probably the best example of the up and down stop start pushes they hand out. He did nothing for months outside of a few comedy segments with Santino and then out of nowhere wins MITB and the World Title in the space of a week. He's then booked like shit, loses the title and is pushed back to the mid card. It was baffling.I'm not that big a fan of Punk to be honest though. There is something about him that is unlikeable, there's a smarmy smugness to him that doesn't look good on a babyface. The Rock was a smug arrogant swine but he was so damn cool you still liked him anyway.