Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CM Punk Megathread
Options
Comments
-
0 -
Those .gif's move way too fast to read given the crap font.
He'll be back in a few years like the part timers he complains about.0 -
-
-
I appreciate the idea of not taking **** from anybody, but it's easy to say when you're pretty much set for life financially speaking. I think it's a pretty condescending thing to say to not only many people in the locker room, but also people who are slogging it in jobs they hate but need.
Sometimes, we've no choice but to eat ****. Punk is a very lucky guy, I hope he knows that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wow. Thank you. This post sums up my feelings about Punk in a way better and nicer way than I ever could. I have loved Punk for everything he has done in the industry and for (hopefully) paving the way for guys who don't have "the look" to breakthrough to main event status.Soft Falling Rain wrote: »I appreciate the idea of not taking **** from anybody, but it's easy to say when you're pretty much set for life financially speaking. I think it's a pretty condescending thing to say to not only many people in the locker room, but also people who are slogging it in jobs they hate but need.
Sometimes, we've no choice but to eat ****. Punk is a very lucky guy, I hope he knows that.
However, I cannot forgive Punk for basically being a hypocrite. If he does ever come back (which I think is highly unlikely) I won't be cheering for him or marking out. I'll always cherish the great moments he has brought us on WWE (in a time where it was getting very samey) but I don't think I can feel the same way about him again. Hopefully this ends the CM Punk chants0 -
Ha Ha, when I read online that Punk had tweeted a 'thank you' I knew that if I came on here there would be people ripping on him for it but I gotta say I was surprised to see that the 'don't take shìt from anybody' comment was taken as being condescending.
So now, essentially telling people to stand up for themselves is condescending? Is it something to piss and moan about? I guess Punk really has some effect on people doesn't he. In ANY job if you are a doormat you are going to end up being walked on. Saying 'no thank you' or 'I can't do that' respectfully is a skill that is essential in the workplace. It's true, sometimes you have to eat shìt, figuratively, but not all the time, you need to sometimes just say no.
Based on the wrestling podcasts i've listened to in the few last months, that would be in the know, (JR, Jericho, Austin) saying no and standing up for yourself is even more important in WWE because they test you, want you to show that you will stand up for yourself because if you wanna be a 'top guy' you need to be able to do that. Particularly if you ever want Vince to respect you. One example that Austin made was the point of what direction would Sandows career have gone if he'd said no to the pink tights?
Although none of us know the exact reasons why Punk walk I'm sure there is plenty of speculation that we can use to really bitch and moan about Punk being a hypocrite. How about:- Giving up on making the wwe a 'better place' after just 3 years of trying as a top guy
- Refusing to further risk his health after feeling ****e for 6 months and having multiple inconclusive MRIs
- Not wanting to work with Kane - I mean it worked out so well for Daniel Bryan
- Not wanting to work with Triple H - Inconsiderate basstard be forgetting how much HHH helped his momentum at Night of Champions in 2011
- Walking out while being at a loose end and without being in the middle of any storyline
Do we really need to scrape the bottom of the barrel and piss and moan because he essentially said 'Thank you and you should always stand up for yourself'?0 -
There is a massive, MASSIVE difference between standing up for yourself and fighting for what you believe in than there is saying one thing but doing another. Punk said he wanted to change things and he couldn't do that sitting on his couch. What is he doing? Sitting on his couch. I fully agree that in every aspect of life, especially professional wrestling, you have to stand up for yourself and follow through with things like what you think your character should do, say and wear.
But when you say one thing and do the opposite that is the exact definition of a hypocrite. You can try and claim all you want that it isn't but you will rarely get a more clear cut case of hypocrisy than this.0 -
I think the point is it's a touch hypocritical given his WWE run has ensured he can live comfortably for the rest of his life. At age 35 he could probably never work a day in his life again.
Personally I think he hasn't come across very well.
And you stand up to people by holding your ground and working **** out. Not by walking away. That is the action of a petulant child.0 -
mrkiscool2 wrote: »There is a massive, MASSIVE difference between standing up for yourself and fighting for what you believe in than there is saying one thing but doing another. Punk said he wanted to change things and he couldn't do that sitting on his couch. What is he doing? Sitting on his couch. I fully agree that in every aspect of life, especially professional wrestling, you have to stand up for yourself and follow through with things like what you think your character should do, say and wear.
But when you say one thing and do the opposite that is the exact definition of a hypocrite. You can try and claim all you want that it isn't but you will rarely get a more clear cut case of hypocrisy than this.
I would think that 3 years banging your head against the wall in trying to change something more than fulfills his comment about wanting to change things. He tried, he failed. Not trying would have made him a hypocrite, trying and failing just means he failed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moneymaker wrote: »
Personally I think he hasn't come across very well.
And you stand up to people by holding your ground and working **** out. Not by walking away. That is the action of a petulant child.
I fully agree that he hasn't come across well but at the same time I have to disagree with your walking away point because, sometimes, as an adult, you need to know when to walk away too, be it in relationships, negotiations and fights/arguments. Not everything can be worked out.0 -
Sorry, have to disagree with you here. How many chances did he have to change things? He had a year and a quarter as the WWE champion. In that time he faced two guys (not counting Ryback) in Dolph Ziggler and Daniel Bryan. He could have put them over if he wanted but it was all about the glory for him so he didn't. The best example was the 3 on 1 handicap match vs The Shield. He beat them and that could have made them look very weak if it wasn't for just how good the guys were. You can't tell me he didn't have a chance to changes things and make it easier for the smaller guys to win.savemejebus wrote: »I would think that 3 years banging your head against the wall in trying to change something more than fulfills his comment about wanting to change things. He tried, he failed. Not trying would have made him a hypocrite, trying and failing just means he failed.
No, I agree. But that doesn't mean you f-off because you aren't getting what you want. CM Punk wasn't getting what CM Punk wanted, to main event WM. Him vs Trips would have been a very good match and probably would have co-main evented it. So instead he reneges on his contract and just went home. That is not an adult move, that is a childish move.savemejebus wrote: »I fully agree that he hasn't come across well but at the same time I have to disagree with your walking away point because, sometimes, as an adult, you need to know when to walk away too, be it in relationships, negotiations and fights/arguments. Not everything can be worked out.0 -
He got matches with Lesnar, Taker, Cena and the Rock.
He hardly ever got beaten clean. Even at the Rumble he was protected and looked strong. He beat the Shield in a 3 on 1 match.
Despite all that he STILL wasn't a major draw. He phoned it in and didn't give a fuuck for 18 months, kept doing that awful, awful elbow drop.
I wouldn't go as far as to label him a "glorified mid carder", but I can see where the people who do are coming from.
WWE allowed him to make millions, live his dream and retire at age 35. I'd be a bit more grateful and less bitter and resentful then he comes across as.0 -
savemejebus wrote: »Walking out while being at a loose end and without being in the middle of any storyline
But he was in the middle of a storyline, and a fairly big one at that. What Daniel Bryan did from the Rumble to Wrestlemania is almost exactly what Punk would have done. The only difference being he may not have gone on to the title match. He'd have had the Triple H match and likely would have won. Apparently, that wasn't good enough for him.
Had Punk stuck around, he would have been in Bryan's spot while Bryan was in a feud with Bray Wyatt and then Sheamus according to all the reports at the time.0 -
Moneymaker wrote: »WWE allowed him to make millions, live his dream and retire at age 35. I'd be a bit more grateful and less bitter and resentful then he comes across as.
You are making it sound like he was a charity case that WWE graciously allowed to become a star. I would stake my life on the fact that the WWE/Punk relationship was more beneficial to WWE than it was to Punk, and that they made far, far more money from him than he from them.
Punk owed WWE nothing; they made the return on him via merchandise, PPV sales and other things.
The funny thing as well is I don't get where this idea he is bitter or resentful comes from either; since leaving, he has remained professionally silent about everything and anything. We still don't know exactly what happened or why, or how any of the parties feel about it all, so to start labelling him as bitter and resentful seems harsh....0 -
mrkiscool2 wrote: »Sorry, have to disagree with you here. How many chances did he have to change things? He had a year and a quarter as the WWE champion. In that time he faced two guys (not counting Ryback) in Dolph Ziggler and Daniel Bryan. He could have put them over if he wanted but it was all about the glory for him so he didn't. The best example was the 3 on 1 handicap match vs The Shield. He beat them and that could have made them look very weak if it wasn't for just how good the guys were. You can't tell me he didn't have a chance to changes things and make it easier for the smaller guys to win.
... Him vs Trips would have been a very good match and probably would have co-main evented it. So instead he reneges on his contract and just went home. That is not an adult move, that is a childish move.
You are aware that the wrestler doesn't decide who wins right? A wrestler (unless they're Triple H, Cena or Taker level) can make suggestions but they don't choose who wins.
Triple H v Punk may well have been good but depending on which rumours your are listening to one of the key reason Punk walked was because they were dumping him with Kane and not Triple H.
Also, Triple H v Punk would probably be something that Punk would not want to have happen based on how Triple H fooked him over in 2011. Triple H used his 'stroke' to try and kill all Punk's momentum after he came back after Money in the Bank. He should not have been anywhere near a programme with Punk, let alone going over him.Moneymaker wrote: »He got matches with Lesnar, Taker, Cena and the Rock.
He hardly ever got beaten clean. Even at the Rumble he was protected and looked strong. He beat the Shield in a 3 on 1 match.
Despite all that he STILL wasn't a major draw. He phoned it in and didn't give a fuuck for 18 months, kept doing that awful, awful elbow drop.
I wouldn't go as far as to label him a "glorified mid carder", but I can see where the people who do are coming from.
WWE allowed him to make millions, live his dream and retire at age 35. I'd be a bit more grateful and less bitter and resentful then he comes across as.
You can say he phoned it in after Wrestlemania 29 but fact of the matter was he was in bits after more than a year as champ and ****ing up his knee royally in his match with Taker. The reason that elbow drop was awful was due to his trying to protect his injuries. Oh and on not being a major draw, I'm pretty sure he drew pretty big even excluding merchandise sales.
I'm not sure that you can really take his tweet as being ungrateful, bitter and resentful when it is really just saying "thank you and don't take ****e", and despite every rumour out there, this is the first thing we've heard from Punk on wrestling since he's left. This communication is really the only official thing we can draw from and it's not really that bitter and resentfulBut he was in the middle of a storyline, and a fairly big one at that. What Daniel Bryan did from the Rumble to Wrestlemania is almost exactly what Punk would have done. The only difference being he may not have gone on to the title match. He'd have had the Triple H match and likely would have won. Apparently, that wasn't good enough for him.
Had Punk stuck around, he would have been in Bryan's spot while Bryan was in a feud with Bray Wyatt and then Sheamus according to all the reports at the time.
That idea is based on rumours and speculation after he'd left, same as the rumour that he upped and quit because the Triple H match was pulled and he was going to be thrown in with Kane. My point is when he left he was not in the middle of and angle that the viewing public could point to and say "hey what happened to Punk and ?"
Even saying it was true, what is the point of a match with Triple H? Where does it take him, what are the motivations? And to think that Triple H would have put him over is naive. Triple H wouldn't put him over when it made absolute business sense in 2011, there were two chances of him doing it at mania, slim and none.0 -
savemejebus wrote: »That idea is based on rumours and speculation after he'd left, same as the rumour that he upped and quit because the Triple H match was pulled and he was going to be thrown in with Kane. My point is when he left he was not in the middle of and angle that the viewing public could point to and say "hey what happened to Punk and ?"
Even saying it was true, what is the point of a match with Triple H? Where does it take him, what are the motivations? And to think that Triple H would have put him over is naive. Triple H wouldn't put him over when it made absolute business sense in 2011, there were two chances of him doing it at mania, slim and none.
And yet, Triple H put Daniel Bryan over big time, at Wrestlemania. Kinda throws your entire argument out the window. As for the point, it didn't do Bryan much harm.
The Kane feud would not have lasted to Wrestlemania. They would have went to Elimination Chamber where Punk wins and moves on to Triple H. Everybody who watched knows that.
I have a feeling if Punk beat Triple H like Bryan, then won the title like Bryan, he would still not think it was enough for him.0 -
And yet, Triple H put Daniel Bryan over big time, at Wrestlemania. Kinda throws your entire argument out the window. As for the point, it didn't do Bryan much harm.
How does it throw my argument about Punk out the window? Bryan is a different wrestler and the situation was totally different. At the time, and currently, Bryan was and is far more over than Punk. That was a case of Triple H doing the right thing. When Punk was white hot in 2011 Triple H did the exact opposite.The Kane feud would not have lasted to Wrestlemania. They would have went to Elimination Chamber where Punk wins and moves on to Triple H. Everybody who watched knows that.
Just curious, how does everybody know that? Bryan wasn't becoming less popular, Batista was still failing as the returning hero, I'd say it was more likely Punk would get left with Kane right up till mania.I have a feeling if Punk beat Triple H like Bryan, then won the title like Bryan, he would still not think it was enough for him.
You could be right but seeing as he said his only goal left in life was to main event mania you could also be wrong. We'll never know.0 -
And yet, Triple H put Daniel Bryan over big time, at Wrestlemania. Kinda throws your entire argument out the window. As for the point, it didn't do Bryan much harm.
The Kane feud would not have lasted to Wrestlemania. They would have went to Elimination Chamber where Punk wins and moves on to Triple H. Everybody who watched knows that.
I have a feeling if Punk beat Triple H like Bryan, then won the title like Bryan, he would still not think it was enough for him.
I personally believe that plans changed after the Rumble; that Wwe saw the reaction Bryan got and the reaction to his exclusion from the Rumble, and HHH decided a match vs Bryan was better for business than vs Punk.
Punk vs HHH had been under development for months; what happened the night after Mania that Punk changed his mind and went against the plans that they had been working towards for months? Something changed.0 -
Ok, so your argument is that "he was standing up for himself and making decisions" but when it comes to a point that he could have stood up for your like "oh, but Creative!". Sorry, I'm pretty sure if your champion says "here, put this on one of the younger guys" it's a. going to happen or b. they'll make you lose the title as you didn't want it anyway. The last good Punk match I remember was against Cena when Cena cashed in the briefcase.savemejebus wrote: »You are aware that the wrestler doesn't decide who wins right? A wrestler (unless they're Triple H, Cena or Taker level) can make suggestions but they don't choose who wins.
Triple H v Punk may well have been good but depending on which rumours your are listening to one of the key reason Punk walked was because they were dumping him with Kane and not Triple H.
And they were definitely not dumping him with Kane. Kane was going to be a roadblock on his way to the authority. If you recall Punk left the night after Rumble. Maybe Vince and HHH thought he was coming back so wanted to hold off. When it became clear he wasn't Bryan was screwed in the chamber, had two weeks of battering Kane then focused on Triple H. Basically a condensed version of what Punks run to WM 30 would have been.
What would Triple H have to gain from that? Absolutely nothing! 2011 Triple H and 2014 Triple H are miles apart to be honest. Triple H has been putting fecking everyone he is against over since WM 29. He even (kinda) put over Curtis Axel for fecks sake!savemejebus wrote: »Also, Triple H v Punk would probably be something that Punk would not want to have happen based on how Triple H fooked him over in 2011. Triple H used his 'stroke' to try and kill all Punk's momentum after he came back after Money in the Bank. He should not have been anywhere near a programme with Punk, let alone going over him.
Sorry, you didn't see Daniel Bryan or John Cena or anyone who had an injury phone it in. Punk had a good few weeks away after WM 29 and was even worse than he was before! How the fook is that possible unless you don't give a crap? And no, he didn't draw actually! Number were down compared to previous years in any PPV in which he was the main event! (cept RR 2013, but that was because of The Rock and not him)savemejebus wrote: »You can say he phoned it in after Wrestlemania 29 but fact of the matter was he was in bits after more than a year as champ and ****ing up his knee royally in his match with Taker. The reason that elbow drop was awful was due to his trying to protect his injuries. Oh and on not being a major draw, I'm pretty sure he drew pretty big even excluding merchandise sales.
Firstly, he was in the middle of an angle. He had been having trouble with Triple H and Kane in the run up to the Rumble! Or are you just conviently forgetting that? Secondly, what was Punk's main stchick? Oh that's right, ANTI-AUTHORITY! What better way to feed to Punk's fans than by having him, I don't know, feud with the authority?savemejebus wrote: »That idea is based on rumours and speculation after he'd left, same as the rumour that he upped and quit because the Triple H match was pulled and he was going to be thrown in with Kane. My point is when he left he was not in the middle of and angle that the viewing public could point to and say "hey what happened to Punk and ?"
Even saying it was true, what is the point of a match with Triple H? Where does it take him, what are the motivations? And to think that Triple H would have put him over is naive. Triple H wouldn't put him over when it made absolute business sense in 2011, there were two chances of him doing it at mania, slim and none.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are making it sound like he was a charity case that WWE graciously allowed to become a star. I would stake my life on the fact that the WWE/Punk relationship was more beneficial to WWE than it was to Punk, and that they made far, far more money from him than he from them.
Punk owed WWE nothing; they made the return on him via merchandise, PPV sales and other things.
The funny thing as well is I don't get where this idea he is bitter or resentful comes from either; since leaving, he has remained professionally silent about everything and anything. We still don't know exactly what happened or why, or how any of the parties feel about it all, so to start labelling him as bitter and resentful seems harsh....
Who it benefited the most doesn't really matter imo. He's going to be able to live a very comfortable and secure life, at age 35. Every person alive would dream of doing the same.
Remember he retweeted something a few weeks ago also that was a pretty negative opinion on WWE. More will be revealed down the line no doubt but it seems to me he's that way.savemejebus wrote: »
You can say he phoned it in after Wrestlemania 29 but fact of the matter was he was in bits after more than a year as champ and ****ing up his knee royally in his match with Taker. The reason that elbow drop was awful was due to his trying to protect his injuries. Oh and on not being a major draw, I'm pretty sure he drew pretty big even excluding merchandise sales.
He was phoning it in way before that. The match on RAW with Cena excepted, his work was half assed for months while he was still champion.
And he didn't move numbers like a top guy. That's why he was in the mid card section of the shows and PPVs, despite being WWE Champion.
Punk was not a draw. At least not on the level he saw himself at.
And if he was trying not to get hurt, why not just stop doing the move?
His merch sales were solid, but leagues behind Cena's.0 -
Do people actually buy into the whole Punk wanted to change the business thing?
Only change it seemed like he wanted was to put himself in position of those he complained about.0 -
mrkiscool2 wrote: »Ok, so your argument is that "he was standing up for himself and making decisions" but when it comes to a point that he could have stood up for your like "oh, but Creative!". Sorry, I'm pretty sure if your champion says "here, put this on one of the younger guys" it's a. going to happen or b. they'll make you lose the title as you didn't want it anyway.
Words just fail me here, you're trolling right?mrkiscool2 wrote: »And they were definitely not dumping him with Kane. Kane was going to be a roadblock on his way to the authority. If you recall Punk left the night after Rumble. Maybe Vince and HHH thought he was coming back so wanted to hold off. When it became clear he wasn't Bryan was screwed in the chamber, had two weeks of battering Kane then focused on Triple H. Basically a condensed version of what Punks run to WM 30 would have been.
That was never going to happen after the Rumble, just like Bryan was never going to win in the Chamber, it made too much sense to have him have his moment at mania.mrkiscool2 wrote: »What would Triple H have to gain from that? Absolutely nothing! 2011 Triple H and 2014 Triple H are miles apart to be honest. Triple H has been putting fecking everyone he is against over since WM 29. He even (kinda) put over Curtis Axel for fecks sake!
Triple H as the heel isn't supposed to gain anything from it. Triple H being beaten is the payoff for the babyface, booking 101 - Dastardly heel beats on babyface for weeks and weeks and then at the culmination of the feud the babyface triumphs against adversity and beats the heel. Then moves on to the next angle. 2011 and 2014 Triple H are not miles apart, if they were the Shield breakup would have happened another way.
I'd guess it depends on the severity of the injury and the person involved, also whether they'd just spent 400 days as champ doing all the extra stuff that goes with it. With regards to drawing, from what I've read he drew pretty well http://www.sescoops.com/cm-punk-drawing-power/ and was a huge merchandise seller.mrkiscool2 wrote: »Sorry, you didn't see Daniel Bryan or John Cena or anyone who had an injury phone it in. Punk had a good few weeks away after WM 29 and was even worse than he was before! How the fook is that possible unless you don't give a crap? And no, he didn't draw actually! Number were down compared to previous years in any PPV in which he was the main event! (cept RR 2013, but that was because of The Rock and not him)
I'm not conveniently forgetting anything, he was treading water in a lukewarm angle that, at the time, had no direction. You cannot look at what Bryan did afterwards and say 'see that would have been punk'. The ball was set rolling with Bryan at Summerslam. With Punk he was just slotted in there as they had nothing else for him after Lesnar. You can disagree but ask yourself this, how much focus was on that angle, it wasn't main eventing by any stretch. Having trouble is a nice way to put it, his dropping out didn't make a difference really, if it had they'd have moved heaven and earth to get him back to put the mania plans on track. They didn't because he was just treading water while the Yes movement took over.mrkiscool2 wrote: »Firstly, he was in the middle of an angle. He had been having trouble with Triple H and Kane in the run up to the Rumble! Or are you just conviently forgetting that? Secondly, what was Punk's main stchick? Oh that's right, ANTI-AUTHORITY! What better way to feed to Punk's fans than by having him, I don't know, feud with the authority?0 -
Nope, the crux of your argument was that Punk was doing everything he could to make it better for guys like him coming through yet when presented with an argument you just pawn it off not blaming Punk.savemejebus wrote: »Words just fail me here, you're trolling right?
That was the plan! It was the plan all along! It was reported everywhere! Punk vs Triple H at WM after Punk had gotten through with Kane! Had it not been for Punk leaving who knows what would have happened with Daniel Bryan!savemejebus wrote: »That was never going to happen after the Rumble, just like Bryan was never going to win in the Chamber, it made too much sense to have him have his moment at mania.
What are you saying?! How is Triple H as a heel not drastically different from Triple H as a face in 2011? You have got to be kidding me! Triple H has a lot more control than he did in 2011 and guess what? He is using that booking power to put people like Bryan and The Shield over!savemejebus wrote: »Triple H as the heel isn't supposed to gain anything from it. Triple H being beaten is the payoff for the babyface, booking 101 - Dastardly heel beats on babyface for weeks and weeks and then at the culmination of the feud the babyface triumphs against adversity and beats the heel. Then moves on to the next angle. 2011 and 2014 Triple H are not miles apart, if they were the Shield breakup would have happened another way.
Hmm, nothing to do with the fact nearly ever main event he was in was with John Cena or The Rock? He wasn't as good as draw as he should be for a main eventer, simple as! Also, do you know who else sold a load of merch? Zack Ryder!savemejebus wrote: »I'd guess it depends on the severity of the injury and the person involved, also whether they'd just spent 400 days as champ doing all the extra stuff that goes with it. With regards to drawing, from what I've read he drew pretty well http://www.sescoops.com/cm-punk-drawing-power/ and was a huge merchandise seller.
I'm clearly dealing with a Punk fanboy here (nothing wrong with being a fan and defending him, but this point is just awful). Lesnar vs Punk wasn't because there was no plan for him, he had a massive feud with Heyman! Set in motion at Payback that year! He was then fighting the Authority as they were trying to screw him because he was standing up to them! A fecking child could follow this, why can't you? PUNK HAD STORYLINES! Not WWE's fault he was just phoning it in and when he didn't get his way he left. A match vs Triple H at WM as a culmination from Survivor Series onwards is pretty good for a guy whom you seem to be making out like a martyr who was stuck in the mid-card!savemejebus wrote: »I'm not conveniently forgetting anything, he was treading water in a lukewarm angle that, at the time, had no direction. You cannot look at what Bryan did afterwards and say 'see that would have been punk'. The ball was set rolling with Bryan at Summerslam. With Punk he was just slotted in there as they had nothing else for him after Lesnar. You can disagree but ask yourself this, how much focus was on that angle, it wasn't main eventing by any stretch. Having trouble is a nice way to put it, his dropping out didn't make a difference really, if it had they'd have moved heaven and earth to get him back to put the mania plans on track. They didn't because he was just treading water while the Yes movement took over.0 -
I buy that he believed it and believes that he could do a better job, sure most dictators think they're out to improve society.Do people actually buy into the whole Punk wanted to change the business thing?
Only change it seemed like he wanted was to put himself in position of those he complained about.
The guy was pretty wrecked by MITB 2011 but understandably stuck around to make a bucketload of money. Sure between the start of 2011 and 2013 he aged horrifically, remember the state of his eyes by the end? He should've taken an extended break after 29 like he kept saying he was going to, the fact he didn't implies that he's not able to let himself do the part time thing for whatever reason (presumably due to how it'd sabotage that Mania main event goal that he set himself) and quitting abruptly like he did was probably the only way he could go about it and stick to it.
Still think there's a possibility that he'll stay retired, the guy cares a lot about what people say about him and he'll be permanently branded a hypocrite if he returns to a top roster slot.0 -
mrkiscool2 wrote: »Nope, the crux of your argument was that Punk was doing everything he could to make it better for guys like him coming through yet when presented with an argument you just pawn it off not blaming Punk.
I'm sorry but you didn't present me with an argument, you said:sorry, I'm pretty sure if your champion says "here, put this on one of the younger guys" it's a. going to happen or b. they'll make you lose the title as you didn't want it anyway."
I asked if you were trolling me because if you believe that this is the way the industry works then any rational discussion is a waste of time.
The royal rumble and the Yes movement changed all of this. Batistas reception and Bryans popularity changed every plan wwe had.mrkiscool2 wrote: »That was the plan! It was the plan all along! It was reported everywhere! Punk vs Triple H at WM after Punk had gotten through with Kane! Had it not been for Punk leaving who knows what would have happened with Daniel Bryan!
Really, he's not the same? Look at who 'won' with the shield breaking up. Who was left smirking with Plan B. Triple H "always wins", that's how he books himself.mrkiscool2 wrote: »What are you saying?! How is Triple H as a heel not drastically different from Triple H as a face in 2011? You have got to be kidding me! Triple H has a lot more control than he did in 2011 and guess what? He is using that booking power to put people like Bryan and The Shield over!
What is your point, did you read the article? Actually don't answer that because i'm probably not going to respond further after this. Any wrestling show is down to more than one person, people aren't going to pay to see the Rock or Cena or punk wrestle Jinder Mahal or Heath Slater. They want to see them fight a worthy heel or face and like it or not you need a minimum of two people for matches so to say that he didn't draw and that it was only his opponents that drew is totally ignoring the necessity of his being a compelling opponent for Cena or Rock or Ryback or whoever.mrkiscool2 wrote: »Hmm, nothing to do with the fact nearly ever main event he was in was with John Cena or The Rock? He wasn't as good as draw as he should be for a main eventer, simple as! Also, do you know who else sold a load of merch? Zack Ryder!mrkiscool2 wrote: »I'm clearly dealing with a Punk fanboy here (nothing wrong with being a fan and defending him, but this point is just awful). Lesnar vs Punk wasn't because there was no plan for him, he had a massive feud with Heyman! Set in motion at Payback that year! He was then fighting the Authority as they were trying to screw him because he was standing up to them! A fecking child could follow this, why can't you? PUNK HAD STORYLINES! Not WWE's fault he was just phoning it in and when he didn't get his way he left. A match vs Triple H at WM as a culmination from Survivor Series onwards is pretty good for a guy whom you seem to be making out like a martyr who was stuck in the mid-card!
I think that you must have misread what i wrote, I wrote that there was no clear plan AFTER Lesnar vs Punk. Even going on from that I stand by my assertion that what you are terming "punk vs authority" was a hashed together lukewarm angle that wasn't going anywhere. He was not missed (storyline wise) after the Royal rumble and after the rumble him vs Triple H was not likely to happen due to the evolving Bryan situation and the failure of Batista's return.
If you think i'm a fanboy you're mistaken. I've enjoyed Punks work but whether is on the show or not makes very little difference to me. The reason I posted here is due to the whole "Punk owes something" opinion that pervades the thread. I disagree with it, he and any other wrestler owe us nothing beyond what we pay our ticket prices for.
However if i'm coming off as a fanboy I apologise and then I guess it's time to stop posting on this thread.0 -
Do people actually buy into the whole Punk wanted to change the business thing?
Only change it seemed like he wanted was to put himself in position of those he complained about.
Not for a second. He wanted to be top dog and earn a lot of money, nothing wrong with that.
Punk is WWE's Adebayor. Talented, motivated for a fat new contract, turns in great performances, gets contract, phones it in.0 -
J. Marston wrote: »Not for a second. He wanted to be top dog and earn a lot of money, nothing wrong with that.
Punk is WWE's Adebayor. Talented, motivated for a fat new contract, turns in great performances, gets contract, phones it in.
Nothing wrong with it at all, and if he just came out and admitted as much he would be a lot more tolerable.
Seeing the difference in his attitude from when Cena and Rock were headlining ppv's compared to when it was him and Rock shows him up for what he is.0 -
Do people actually buy into the whole Punk wanted to change the business thing?
Only change it seemed like he wanted was to put himself in position of those he complained about.
I'd say it's a bit of both tbh. I think he genuinely wanted to change the business for the better. The problem was he felt that him being the top guy was best for business. That he deserved to be the top guy and could largely carry the company in the same with Stone Cold did. Trouble is, this isn't the Stone Cold era, and WWE was moving in a different direction, which meant Punk could never really be the top guy.
I think he felt him being the top guy was genuinely best for business, but it's his own somewhat elevated opinion of himself which made him believe that.0 -
Advertisement
-
You can't be the top guy without the media and celebrity and everything that goes with it,Punk hates all that stuff it's not a good mix he was always going to get frustrated and burned out0
Advertisement