|
Post by cool guy on Mar 27, 2013 18:31:07 GMT -5
For the match quality alone? Yes, please Yeah, if you had moved that raw match they had to Wrestlemania and given it a few solid weeks of build-up it would have been amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Djm Doesn't Find You Funny on Mar 27, 2013 18:31:26 GMT -5
If Punk was big enough to be in the Main Event. He would be in the Main event. Honestly, this. What could WWE really do with Punk if Rock weren't there? Punk vs Cena 50? They can't even get crowds to stop cheering for him. Being on the WrestleMania card itself should be enough. Yeah, sure. OK. I like that idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 18:36:48 GMT -5
They should just have ONE of them, man. Having THREE special attraction matches is beyond silly, they all dilute each others' drawing power and squeeze the rest of the card out of their spots. The idea of using popular wrestlers from the past as draws is fine, but there's just too much of it this year at Mania.
|
|
Sc
Don Corleone
Must think of something witty to put here...
Posts: 1,417
|
Post by Sc on Mar 27, 2013 18:37:32 GMT -5
I agree with that, which is why I find most of his main event matches to be so boring because all they do is go out there and just wrestle.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 27, 2013 18:39:42 GMT -5
I'm honestly surprised people don't think this is a work. Everything he said screams it to me.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Mar 27, 2013 19:08:41 GMT -5
He has every right to be upset. He's the top heel in WWE, and he's not in the main-event. If Rock hadn't come back, Punk would have main-evented WrestleMania both last year and this year. There is no doubt in my mind, and I'm sure Punk sees that, too. I'd be bitter as well. He's the biggest heel in the company and he can't get a WrestleMania main-event. It's a joke. Hogan didn't come back in 1999 and rob Rock of his main-event slot. Hogan couldn't have come back and robbed Rock of his main event spot because, you know, Rock could draw and was never going to get demoted. If Punk could draw properly on TV/PPV, WWE wouldn't have to bring back all these part-timers, would they?
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Mar 27, 2013 19:13:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 19:15:20 GMT -5
About time they resume their feud.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on Mar 27, 2013 19:16:25 GMT -5
He has every right to be upset. He's the top heel in WWE, and he's not in the main-event. If Rock hadn't come back, Punk would have main-evented WrestleMania both last year and this year. There is no doubt in my mind, and I'm sure Punk sees that, too. I'd be bitter as well. He's the biggest heel in the company and he can't get a WrestleMania main-event. It's a joke. Hogan didn't come back in 1999 and rob Rock of his main-event slot. Hogan couldn't have come back and robbed Rock of his main event spot because, you know, Rock could draw and was never going to get demoted. If Punk could draw properly on TV/PPV, WWE wouldn't have to bring back all these part-timers, would they? Are we ignoring the fact that it's proven Punk's as much of a draw as Cena in terms of TV ratings? Guess so, if we're now going to talk about how he isn't an outdated term and idea that no longer has much merit in the current landscape of WWE.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Mar 27, 2013 19:17:06 GMT -5
Hogan couldn't have come back and robbed Rock of his main event spot because, you know, Rock could draw and was never going to get demoted. If Punk could draw properly on TV/PPV, WWE wouldn't have to bring back all these part-timers, would they? Are we ignoring the fact that it's proven Punk's as much of a draw as Cena in terms of TV ratings? Guess so, if we're now going to talk about how he isn't an outdated term and idea that no longer has much merit in the current landscape of WWE. ??
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Mar 27, 2013 19:22:34 GMT -5
I swear, this sounds every bit as rehearsed, forced, and scripted as everything that comes out of Miz's mouth during his promotional interviews and the like, only it's pandering to a different audience.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on Mar 27, 2013 19:24:27 GMT -5
Are we ignoring the fact that it's proven Punk's as much of a draw as Cena in terms of TV ratings? Guess so, if we're now going to talk about how he isn't an outdated term and idea that no longer has much merit in the current landscape of WWE. ?? It's been shown, going by the numbers, that Punk's segments tend to keep the numbers steady in viewership after another top star's segment. The information tends to show that segments including him spike the ratings if they've dipped. And, that ratings tend to drop, depending on what's next, after a segment featuring him is concluded. That, by the classic definition of the terminology, is a TV draw. So it makes your claim he's not one invalidated. Problem is, as others have said, it's an outdated idea that doesn't work in WWE's scene in modern times. We aren't in the age of draws, we are in the age of the company as a whole, the brand being the draw. Cena doesn't increase the ratings beyond the average. Punk doesn't increase them, nor Orton, Sheamus, Brock, Undertaker, Rock, Triple H, Del Rio and so forth. Do they maintain the average high? Yes. But that's not the classic definition of a draw, a draw continually increases the ratings & buyrates. As far as PPV buyrates go, Cena wouldn't be the classic definition of a draw either there. Neither would most of the men I listed, including Undertaker or Brock. The only one arguably one can make that claim of now is The Rock, and even then it's dubious at best.
|
|
|
Post by WorkingInAColeMine on Mar 27, 2013 19:25:41 GMT -5
The big news here is that someone is still paying Mark Madden money for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Mar 27, 2013 19:27:15 GMT -5
Miz was, and always has been, a huge Rock mark. Maybe Punk just can't understand the idea of someone being genuinely happy to learn from and be around around a legend, instead of viewing them as just another threat to your spot and financial earnings? Hey, if I was a wrestler I'd love to see The Rock around. I guess it would be like if a small time actor got to do a movie with Pacino. Are they really going to sit around and whine about Pacino getting paid way more when he's not even in the movie much? Of course not. It's frigging Pacino. Just being around him is an honor. Not something to whine about. Only if its 1970's Pacino. Punk probably thinks he's better than 70's Pacino
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 19:36:16 GMT -5
?? It's been shown, going by the numbers, that Punk's segments tend to keep the numbers steady in viewership after another top star's segment. The information tends to show that segments including him spike the ratings if they've dipped. And, that ratings tend to drop, depending on what's next, after a segment featuring him is concluded. That, by the classic definition of the terminology, is a TV draw. So it makes your claim he's not one invalidated. Problem is, as others have said, it's an outdated idea that doesn't work in WWE's scene in modern times. We aren't in the age of draws, we are in the age of the company as a whole, the brand being the draw. Cena doesn't increase the ratings beyond the average. Punk doesn't increase them, nor Orton, Sheamus, Brock, Undertaker, Rock, Triple H, Del Rio and so forth. Do they maintain the average high? Yes. But that's not the classic definition of a draw, a draw continually increases the ratings & buyrates. As far as PPV buyrates go, Cena wouldn't be the classic definition of a draw either there. Neither would most of the men I listed, including Undertaker or Brock. The only one arguably one can make that claim of now is The Rock, and even then it's dubious at best. I do think it's a good point that John Cena isn't this huge be-all-end-all draw himself. He's more Bret Hart than Hulk Hogan. Undertaker hasn't even been the top guy and drawn tons of money. Triple H's rise to the main event and 'reign of terror' coincided with WWE's business dropping off massively. It's pretty convenient, and over-simplified, to just throw out there that CM Punk 'doesn't draw' to try and negate him somehow.
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,312
|
Post by Sam Punk on Mar 27, 2013 19:36:58 GMT -5
Bret Hart just told me he thinks punk is too much of a mark for himself.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Mar 27, 2013 19:37:54 GMT -5
The big news here is that someone is still paying Mark Madden money for some reason. I'm just assuming Punk did all the talking while Madden just ate a huge hoagie during the interview.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Mar 27, 2013 19:38:56 GMT -5
For all his fervent loyal-to-the-end-worked-into-a-frenzy-over-the-slightest-criticism-following and how scripted and fake everything about him is, it really seems like Miz is the second coming of But Punk is really, Oh what a glorious tousle they'd have! #mizpunkfeud
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Mar 27, 2013 19:40:39 GMT -5
The big news here is that someone is still paying Mark Madden money for some reason. He's popular, and there's one huge thing besides that for him. He broke the Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal story, 7 months before anyone else covered it.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on Mar 27, 2013 19:41:25 GMT -5
It's been shown, going by the numbers, that Punk's segments tend to keep the numbers steady in viewership after another top star's segment. The information tends to show that segments including him spike the ratings if they've dipped. And, that ratings tend to drop, depending on what's next, after a segment featuring him is concluded. That, by the classic definition of the terminology, is a TV draw. So it makes your claim he's not one invalidated. Problem is, as others have said, it's an outdated idea that doesn't work in WWE's scene in modern times. We aren't in the age of draws, we are in the age of the company as a whole, the brand being the draw. Cena doesn't increase the ratings beyond the average. Punk doesn't increase them, nor Orton, Sheamus, Brock, Undertaker, Rock, Triple H, Del Rio and so forth. Do they maintain the average high? Yes. But that's not the classic definition of a draw, a draw continually increases the ratings & buyrates. As far as PPV buyrates go, Cena wouldn't be the classic definition of a draw either there. Neither would most of the men I listed, including Undertaker or Brock. The only one arguably one can make that claim of now is The Rock, and even then it's dubious at best. I do think it's a good point that John Cena isn't this huge be-all-end-all draw himself. He's more Bret Hart than Hulk Hogan. Undertaker hasn't even been the top guy and drawn tons of money. Triple H's rise to the main event and 'reign of terror' coincided with WWE's business dropping off massively. It's pretty convenient, and over-simplified, to just throw out there that CM Punk 'doesn't draw' to try and negate him somehow. Honestly, I thought it was common knowledge. Cena, despite how they book him and push him, is more Hart/Michaels than he is Hogan/Austin. He's the company's flag barrier that maintains the average, helping prevent it from dipping too low. But not the guy that's going to change the business or get people buzzing about it again.
|
|