Psychoblue
Don Corleone
WrestleCrap #1 Kona Crush mark (probably)
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by Psychoblue on Apr 18, 2014 14:03:08 GMT -5
If Punk wants to be the top guy, he should have been prepared for that kind of pain.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Apr 18, 2014 14:30:27 GMT -5
I think the WWE is happy now that they never made Punk the #1 company star. In the end a lot of us were wrong to put Punk in Cenas' spot when obviously Cena is much more dependable. Punk was already ready to leave back in 2011 so he was burned out a few years back already. But decided to stay since he was basically promised a WWE title run & more accommodations. But than after his 14 month title reign was up, he started to get burned out yet again. And he admitted he was basically half-assing his promos & performance for awhile in an interview back in January. I understand his frustrations with being pissed that guys who were gone for years all of a sudden come back & take up the top spot, but Punk still shouldn't of left the way he did. He should have at least finished up the shows he was advertised for before leaving.
|
|
|
Post by Ganon83 on Apr 18, 2014 15:32:08 GMT -5
I'm not assuming anything anything in this situation yet until Punk says something. We know Punk had been burnt out physically. We know he an Vince had a meeting before RAW. We know Punk left the building after this. We know his fiancee is now taking time off. And we know both sides have either said nothing or when asked will dodge the question. We have no idea what was said in that meeting. Punk could of told Vince he was tired, or he was fed up, or he was leaving to start a family. That's what we all want to know, and I'm beginning to think only Vince or Punk truly know.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Apr 18, 2014 16:02:27 GMT -5
He's the reason I came back to wrestling. So I am sad to see him not there. But I will not vilify him for doing what is best for his well-being, which is more important than being part of a wrestling show.
|
|
|
Post by bigalbass86 AKA Smokin Vokoun on Apr 18, 2014 16:06:58 GMT -5
I would rather have him go away and comeback rested and happy, than have him be injured and miserable and putting on bad performances. I don't blame him one damn bit.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 18, 2014 17:31:26 GMT -5
If Punk wants to be the top guy, he should have been prepared for that kind of pain. *headdesk* How are posts like this still happening?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 18, 2014 18:52:32 GMT -5
If Punk wants to be the top guy, he should have been prepared for that kind of pain. That may be one of the most idiotic things I've read on this forum. Sooner or later wrestlers' bodies start to break down, and no amount of preparation can change that. All they can do is a cost/benefit analysis - is the cost of their physical well-being worth the money and job satisfaction gained from doing so? If the answer is no, then it's time to get out. Any fan who takes a contrary opinion is simply being a self-entitled child with no respect for the performers.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 18, 2014 18:56:54 GMT -5
Now answer me this, WHY, why I ask would WWE simply let Punk not only walk out, but not say anything, or even attempt to file breach of contract charges out of rightful spite? Perhaps because it truly was amicable? And at a crossroads, both WWE and Punk decided the best course of action would be to simply let Punk's remaining downside expire, and then mutually part ways with zero mudslinging? The whole thing makes no sense based on the prior actions of both WWE and Punk. Did they file a breach of contract with Stone Cold or Warrior? If not, there's your most likely reason. Of course, it's all about money for them in hte end, so even if they weren't happy, if they think Punk can make them money then they're not going to go out of their way to piss him off ala Warrior, who I'm pretty sure they never imagined being back or a big factor again. Not saying it wasn't amicable, but there are a lot of reasons not to go that route with Punk if you're WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Apr 18, 2014 18:58:54 GMT -5
Is it wrong that I couldn't care less about what Foley has to say about Punk at this point. I know, I know: post=care, but still, it's one guy who always overestimated his relevance talking about another guy how overestimated their relevance.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Apr 18, 2014 19:03:52 GMT -5
I love how people speculate and assume negative motives for pretty much anything HHH, Vince, or the WWE as a whole does all the time, but when it comes to Punk, we're only allowed to speculate positive things. Like that he left because of "bad booking", and to stand up for Daniel Bryan or whatever.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 18, 2014 21:05:22 GMT -5
Now answer me this, WHY, why I ask would WWE simply let Punk not only walk out, but not say anything, or even attempt to file breach of contract charges out of rightful spite? Perhaps because it truly was amicable? And at a crossroads, both WWE and Punk decided the best course of action would be to simply let Punk's remaining downside expire, and then mutually part ways with zero mudslinging? The whole thing makes no sense based on the prior actions of both WWE and Punk. Did they file a breach of contract with Stone Cold or Warrior? If not, there's your most likely reason. Of course, it's all about money for them in hte end, so even if they weren't happy, if they think Punk can make them money then they're not going to go out of their way to piss him off ala Warrior, who I'm pretty sure they never imagined being back or a big factor again. Not saying it wasn't amicable, but there are a lot of reasons not to go that route with Punk if you're WWE. Warrior's contracts were tricky. The first, his contract expired, and their story was that he, like Jarrett in 1999, held them up for a cash payment to wrestle at Summer Slam. So, if true, his contract was expired, and thus, he was not legally bound to them and well within rights to (allegedly) demand what he did, scruples be damned. The 2nd contract was terminated via a steroid suspension. Warrior had failed every surprise steroid test they had given him in 1992, and along with Davey, they cut him because of PR reasons due to the impending steroid allegations. The 3rd contract was also terminated by them, when Warrior asked for time off to grieve his father who just passed away. Their caveat was that he post a bond to reactivate his contract --which he allegedly refused. So, as of August, he was done officially, released, and that was that. Austin was not sued by WWE -- but they withheld all the downside money and merch monies he would have made had he not walked out -- in lieu of suing. This way, Austin was still contracted, but they did not have to pay him. What they did do however, unlike Punk, and even Warrior, is bury him on TV at every chance they had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 21:21:53 GMT -5
I love how people speculate and assume negative motives for pretty much anything HHH, Vince, or the WWE as a whole does all the time, but when it comes to Punk, we're only allowed to speculate positive things. Like that he left because of "bad booking", and to stand up for Daniel Bryan or whatever. When people speculate negative motives for HHH, Vince or WWE, plenty of people defend them, too. It's nothing to do with being allowed anything. If people weren't allowed to speculate negatively about Punk, there would be a hell of a lot of posts breaking that rule. I take umbrage with this "Punk's a whiny bitch" or a "big baby" train-of-thought that's become so popular around here. It's annoying when people have no empathy and make assumptions about things they know absolutely dick about, and phrase it in some kind of morally superior or tough-guy fashion. People are allowed to think it, I'm allowed to find it ignorant and dispute it.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Apr 18, 2014 21:28:45 GMT -5
Is it wrong that I couldn't care less about what Foley has to say about Punk at this point. I know, I know: post=care, but still, it's one guy who always overestimated his relevance talking about another guy how overestimated their relevance. Relevant or not, Foley has had some pretty interesting insight into the goings on in wrestling since he seemingly stopped giving a shit about a Legends contract. It's a valued perspective as we rarely get one from people who have yet to burn their bridge.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,011
|
Post by nate5054 on Apr 19, 2014 4:14:25 GMT -5
If Punk would just come out and say that he's tired and needed a break, I doubt there would be a five page thread on this.
The speculation is due to a total lack of information coming from both sides. Neither side should be compelled to say anything they don't want to, but it does lead to speculation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 5:22:07 GMT -5
If Punk wants to be the top guy, he should have been prepared for that kind of pain. Well, he obviously doesn't want to be the top guy since he left the company. So I'd say you and him agree. Easy!
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Apr 19, 2014 6:42:47 GMT -5
I love how people speculate and assume negative motives for pretty much anything HHH, Vince, or the WWE as a whole does all the time, but when it comes to Punk, we're only allowed to speculate positive things. Like that he left because of "bad booking", and to stand up for Daniel Bryan or whatever. Someone else's disagreement is not your oppression. No one's obliged to agree with everything you say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 9:51:13 GMT -5
I've been reflecting on this, as well, and although the way Punk left wasn't wise or encouragable, at least he did speak to Vince McMahon on the matter. And it also meant that other people could gain prominence on TV. After all, if Punk was still around, than Daniel Bryan likely wouldn't be WWE World Heavyweight Champion. This has worked out for everybody, and thankfully spared us from seeing babyface Batista as champion.
Personally, I think Punk leaving might have been a better idea for both him and the WWE. Think about this... if Punk was going through those issues, than maybe this meant his ability to maintaing peak performance would start to decline, and probably wind up with him deteriorating, much like Austin in late 2001-2003. It's a rough going, and everybody in this industry deals with these issues, but I just think that Punk somehow didn't have the ability to cope physically as well, even with any of his precautions. And would we really want to see a guy forced to go at half-speed or have to live off of what he used to do as a JTTS?
That doesn't mean he didn't deseve his 400+ day reign as champion. After all, that was a huge responsibility and undertaking, and he was aware of that. But, maybe he just doesn't have the X factor needed to be able to stay in the main event spot for long and remain entertaining. We may cringe and gripe about John Cena and Triple H having lots of reigns, but maybe they just had the ability to be in a prominent spot better for longer ("passion" could be the X factor). This can be debated, naturally, but I just wanted to bring this up.
|
|