Jump to content

WWE Raw 7/5/12 Discussion Thread


Cobra1000

Recommended Posts

I don't think, though, that anyone ever has ever said Khali had a profile greater than say Jericho (an example given earlier). Now did anyone think 'THIS GUY IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT BIGGEST STAR'.Even after beating The Undertaker, or winning the WHC, it wasn't HOGAN/WARRIOR and Cena left (after some awful promos and actually dragging Khali to a not awful quasi-match) equally as important as he went into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The reason Punk isn't seen as the top guy in the fans eyes, is because he's not the top guy in the WWE's eyes. He's not been in the top feud on RAW since, maybe, TLC because Cena wasn't at that one. Ever since, Cena's been caught up in big feuds that took attention away from Punk. Now you could argue that if Punk was a bigger star, he'd overcome it, but fact is, WWE hasn't pushed him. On RAW, you get constant recaps of what Kane did to Cena, or what Rock said to Cena, or what Brock did to Cena but never what Ziggler did to Punk. The only time you did, was when Jericho clocked him with the bottle of JD. And even then, that was overshadowed by Brock.Now would have been the perfect time to give Punk a solid push to the main event. A Punk/Orton face vs face main event could have done that. Kinda like the Lashley/Cena thing. It's a quick turnaround from the last pay-per-view so it wouldn't have time to establish a story, just 2 faces fighting for the richest prize in the business. That would have pushed Punk up a little. Instead, Laurinitus vs. Cena will get top billing, and Punk will look like a midcarder again. It makes the WWE Title worse than it does Punk. Cena needs the belt back, because they clearly don't trust Punk closing the show.A Punk vs. Brock feud would lead to some cool angles, but I don't see how an actual match between the 2 can do anything but make one of them look bad.On that note, Brock needs to be wrestling more. I'd have him return for a quick match at Money in the Bank, vs. Sheamus or someone. A quick brawl, where Sheamus gets the upperhand out of the gate, but then gets put down. Then vs. Triple H at Summerslam for the rights to the contract he made with Big Johnny. He wins that. Fucks off and comes back around Hell in a Cell time (seriously, if you've got a former UFC Champion, and you don't put him in your big cage match, you're making a mistake), and beats Cena in a rematch. Faces Orton at Survivor Series - he can win or lose that one. If he loses, he'll bugger off and return to take the WWE Title off him at the Rumble, if he wins, he can beat Cena for it. Then it's the home straight until Royal Rumble. I'm sure 35 dates can stretch to this. Especially if between Chamber & Wrestlemania - Brock & Rock turn up to alternate RAWs and never actually go face to face until the RAW before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

He also faced of a lot of those guys after he had worked with the likes of Randy Orton and HHH. John Cena was already the established top guy before a lot of those feuds. Plus guys like Rob Van Dam, JBL, The Big Show, The Miz and Wade Barrett were all super hot or in their prime when John Cena was working with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not getting to into it, but how cena has been booked since Mania 21 if different to pretty much anyone ever, yeah he was given a few duds but that was after he pretty much went undefeated for a year as the only face (not meaning good guy) of Raw getting strong wins over Angle, Bloody brawls with JBL, running Y2J out of wwe and Bischoff making life hell for him.And thats the first 10months of his reign.Not saying Punk has been booked right or wrong but Cena has been booked very well (for good reason) and hes done very well with nearly everything hes done.Yeah a guy has to take some blame but Cena cant be compared to anyone else booking wise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, Cena got established at the top by beating the likes of Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Batista and Orton. Guys who (barring Orton) were proper, bona-fide wrestling superstars/Hall Of Famers (and Orton was nearly there at times). That's what it takes to tell the general masses "This is the fucking guy, he's a main player, get used to it". Punk has had a bit of that, but not nearly enough. He spent half of the "Summer Of Punk" getting pinned or laid out!

Cena may have taken a backseat for the Kane feud (which was fucking awful, incidentally) but Punk's run at the top often consisted of getting slapped around by Nash (with no comeback) and then losing to Triple H. People seem to conveniently forget that Nash was met by apathy half of the time too (from all the newer/younger fans) and that whole feud did fuck-all for Punk. It's not like Goldberg came back and put him over and then he beat Triple H clean at Summerslam!

 

Both the World and WWE Titles are pretty much positioned where the old Intercontinental and US Titles used to be, setting up upper-card matches and semi-main events. Punk is absolutely at fault for some of his lamer, unfunny promos, but let's not pretend they strapped the whole wagon to him and tried to make him "the new guy" or anything. They tried their luck in building up a B-PPV and it didn't do as well as expected. After that they gave in and dropped him down the card again. He's had a decent run in the upper-card, but stronger booking through most of his recent feuds could have raised his profile far better than they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Now you could argue that if Punk was a bigger star, he'd overcome it, but fact is, WWE hasn't pushed him.

Except for last summer having him beat Cena with the title, turn up on champ at the baseball, work with McMahon and the top guys, having him beat Cena again and all that. If that's not a push, what is?Punk's a great top of the bottom, bottom of the top kind of guy, but that's all he'll ever be. Basically he's the Chris Jericho of the 2010s. I'd love to see the return of the "Big Sexy treats Punk like a child" gimmick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Sadly, Butch has it summed up. While I think WWE could have done a better job with Punk after his run with Cena (Cena was far better protected during his first WWE title run, BTW), that really doesn't matter anymore. What matters is Punk isn't producing numbers. I'm a massive Punk fan (when he's good) but he isn't the type of bloke that WWE can rely on to be a top top talent.I bum Daniel Bryan, but he's in the same bracket as Punk too. Doesn't mean Punk is a bad wrestler, he just has his place. As somebody stated earlier, Shawn Michaels was never really THE guy either but he's still bloody good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really did their best by Punk.

 

The 'shoot' promo where he was basically allowed to bury McMahon's credibility in supporting an anti-bullying campaign and allowed to just expose certain taboos that they usually tried to avoid. Then he beat Cena. He got the McMahon rub. He got to feud with Triple H.

 

Regardless of the fact he lost to Triple H, he kicked out of like 6 pedigrees and was made out to be the dogs bollocks.

 

He was the talking point of the WWE for a long while.

 

But, he fucked it up. He didn't understand what made the initial promo work so well and just dropped in random jokes and ZINGERS! that normal people didn't get and his aura got destroyed in the process. Away from the booking, he looked a main eventer for a couple of weeks. His own failure to get why he was so successful at that point is what killed it.

 

The public wanted to see an anti-authority rebel. They didn't want to see a snide, rude, in-joking, makes-fun-of-a-legends-wife twat.

 

I don't mind Punk. He's fine in the Jericho role.

 

But, he fucked himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I'll try and do a fair analysis on what I think is wrong with CM Punk here. Not agenda ridden or anything, but if I dont like someone, I'll not pretend I do. So in fairness, I'll give you my reasons for why I'm one of the people who look at TubeGalore when he pops up on my stream.When I think stuff people say about how CM Punk's been booked, I always remember Jeff Hardy's situation. The crowd took to him huge in late 2007. When he wrestled Randy Orton he was so hot, most expected that there couldn't be any possible outcome other than a Hardy win. But he lost. Clean. The fans didn't care though. Many predicted the moment was gone, and Hardy lightening was well and truly out of the bottle. But he captured the imagination of the audience that you need to capture. The girls fancied him, the spotty teenages wanted to wear nail polish and dye their hair like retards just like him and children loved his interaction, like when he'd bring them in the ring and do those stupid little dances with them. He ticked all the boxes. Hardy had his faults obviously, but like all the top stars before him, the fans looked past that and Hardy became a huge star for them. He was super over in 2009. He was the most searched for guy on google out of any wrestling, boxing or MMA personality and the hottest merchandise seller in the business for ages (not just a one off while a Cena shirt has been out for ages, like Punk or Ryder). Hardy was terribly booked, Hardy wasn't given 20 minutes a show on the microphone and Hardy never won every match. But he was far more over, drew far more money and crossed over far better than Punk did, but he looked like a star, he didn't act like a complete twat (onscreen) and he appealed to more money markets than Punk does.What I'm getting at is, Hardy wasn't always booked brilliantly. Hardy didn't always win when he was desperate to be thrown a bone. Hardy usually had to eat shit and like it for ages because his house burned down or he turned up methed off his face. But the fans got behind him and loved him because his personality and persona shone through. Punk doesn't have what a Rob Van Dam had in 2001, a Rey Mysterio in 2003, an Eddie Guerrero had in 2004 or what a Jeff Hardy had in 2008. These four were never the top guys. They were always the people fans loved but didn't cross over into Cena, Batista, Austin or Rock territory. What the four mentioned had was a likability factor with everyone. Me personally, I don't actually like CM Punk. I think his character is awful for the position of the card he's in. I'd probably like him if he was in a position of Dolph Ziggler or Cody Rhodes. But as a top guy, you shouldn't be a smarmy cunt, you shouldn't look have Terry Duckworth's haircut and you should actually be likable. When I saw RVD, Eddie or Jeff Hardy or even Chris Jericho when in 2000, when he was (as Butch said) top of the bottom, I thought they were either really cool or at least really likable. And out of desperation due to the current lack of talent on Raw and Smackdown, WWE just threw CM Punk right into a main event position last year. Was he ready for it? Judging by what he can do in the ring, definitely. Were the fans ready for it? Fuck no. He created a buzz, but the fans were no way ready to accept him. Think back to when you were a kid: would you actually invest in Tito Santana if he suddenly started calling the show you love and are loyal to shit than needs a change? I think Triple H even called him out on it one time. The fans didn't want change. They liked it how it was. His whole act was totally wrong for a mainstream wrestling show.Thats just my opinion anyway. And anyone comparing Shawn Michaels in 1996/97 to CM Punk in 2012 is off their trolly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a very fair analysis, Ian.The only thing I would argue a bit is with regard to Punk's overall likability. I agree totally that he's not naturally as "fun" and likable a character as the likes of Eddie, but then few are. But I think the assumption that it's just smarky, older fans that are into Punk is a bit off. Someone pointed out in the UK RAW tapings thread that there were far more kids than he'd imagined decked out in Punk merch. Also, you just have to look at this week's RAW to see that the fans are happy to enjoy Punk's "smarmy cunt" persona when he's aiming it at a hated twat like Johnny Ace. It all went wrong for me when Punk was booked to be a prick to Triple H. I won't labour the point because I know I've made it before, but Triple H was too popular and established for Punk's routine to go against, it just turned fans off of Punk because they liked HHH more.But as I said, a fair look at his situation overall. Also, much like Hardy (with his 2007 push that faltered and his return to the main event in 2009) there is nothing to say Punk won't reach that organic moment to step up in a year or two. The right feud or character development could push him up there one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Thats just my opinion anyway. And anyone comparing Shawn Michaels in 1996/97 to CM Punk in 2012 is off their trolly.

How so? The comparison is based on two blokes (during their first year or so on top) that were weak champions, despite being good wrestlers - those thing are true, are they not? Also, you were going on about Punk turning people off with his smarmy cunt act and shit hair, don't you think people were also turned off by a smarmy cunt playing the part of a stripper?I agree the Punk stuff is a dead issue. As I stated, the past booking doesn't matter, what matters is that he isn't drawing the numbers required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

It wasn't Michaels fault that most of the roster left him stranded in 1996. Shawn was someone who usually drew well with the right guy. He wasn't someone who was going to drag Tiger Chung Lee to a 15,000 seat house like Hogan would, but Michaels was someone who was a difference maker when the opportunity to draw money was there. 1996 was a colossal failure because WWF lost everyone Michaels should have drawn with. In 1996, Michaels should have had a long programme with Diesel, he should have kicked started his feud with Razor again and we should have gotten another series with Bret Hart. But instead, they all left and the WWF was in a transitional period where they had to take a gamble on new stars (like Vader and Mankind) or try and pull a rotten tooth out of a dead horses head with old stars (Davey Boy and Sid). When Michaels worked with a big star like Undertaker, Austin, Bret or someone like that, he always drew well.Shawn was on top during a period where Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Lex Luger and Roddy Piper were headlining on the opposite channel to him. He was fucked no matter what he did. And back then, people were perceived as far bigger stars than today, because there was far more wrestling fans. Undertaker, Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart might not have done mega business, but they were recognisable throughout the world and were treated as such. The international tours WWF ran in 1995 with the stars of that era headlining were big business for them. The WWE is the draw on those tours now. Its an established brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...