|
Post by Bungle on Sept 12, 2016 5:43:13 GMT -5
I understand why other wrestlers openly support him.
But,to me, all this "respect for following your dreams" talk is a joke given the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 12, 2016 5:54:45 GMT -5
I don't quite see the direct parallel between Punk's annoyance at WWE using part timers and the way he got to UFC. Initially, yes, it seems similar, a celebrity getting a main card spot based on little more than name recognition, but there's a world of difference between a worked sport and a shoot one (e.g. if UFC was worked Punk would've at least looked competitive, that way they could keep bringing him back to pop buyrates), plus UFC doesn't have the enormous "work 300 matches a year vs. work just Mania, Rumble, and SummerSlam" schedule issue.
Beyond that, if Punk was still wrestling I don't think he'd turn down a Lesnar-esque schedule, but he's the worker, not the promoter, he'd only really be a hypocrite about it all if he was in a powerful enough position to book a show and then he started relying on part timers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 7:39:42 GMT -5
I don't quite see the direct parallel between Punk's annoyance at WWE using part timers and the way he got to UFC. Initially, yes, it seems similar, a celebrity getting a main card spot based on little more than name recognition, but there's a world of difference between a worked sport and a shoot one (e.g. if UFC was worked Punk would've at least looked competitive, that way they could keep bringing him back to pop buyrates), plus UFC doesn't have the enormous "work 300 matches a year vs. work just Mania, Rumble, and SummerSlam" schedule issue. Beyond that, if Punk was still wrestling I don't think he'd turn down a Lesnar-esque schedule, but he's the worker, not the promoter, he'd only really be a hypocrite about it all if he was in a powerful enough position to book a show and then he started relying on part timers. You're right. There isn't a parallel between Punk complaining about part-timers and him having a UFC slot. What happend in UFC was much worse. There are people in the UFC more deserving of the spot and had to pay their dues to get there, but Dana saw money in Punk and he got 'privilege' to be in the main slot when he didn't deserve it. At least in the WWE, CM Punk still could work and still got paid even if he wasn't in the main event. Same can't be said by many hungry 25+ year old fighters busting their ass off just to get to UFC. It's different because your stock is dependent on your win/loss record, rather than the owner liking your more. I partially blame Punk because he should have known better not to take food off of other people's table, but I also blame Dana for being a bigger carny than Vince.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 12, 2016 7:42:58 GMT -5
It's honestly worse than part time wrestlers coming back. At least they had a proven track record in that field. There isn't a direct parallel because he wasn't a UFC mainstay like the Rock or Brock or Taker was to wrestling. For me, that makes the hypocrisy a little worse.
Again, not that I blame him for doing it. They offer a shitload of money to be on a show, you take it. But his viewpoint is not consistent at all given the thing he was rightfully complaining about happening.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,011
|
Post by nate5054 on Sept 12, 2016 8:03:19 GMT -5
I don't care that he went after his dream. It's the fact that his dream was attained not by any talent or hard work whatsoever, but 100% based on his name value.
Yeah, he may have worked hard before the fight but it obviously did him no good. That was about as a one sided fight as I've ever seen, and it's all because he had no business being in there. The only business he had being in there was "hey, that's CM Punk. He used to be a wrestler. I know who he is."
His detractors would have been much less (but probably still there...the guy comes off as a prick after all) if he would have started out somewhere at a more appropriate skill level for him.
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Sept 12, 2016 8:46:36 GMT -5
Conor still trying for that Wrestlemania payday. Speaking of people I'd enjoy watching get murked... Who's going to do the murking? Brock?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Sept 12, 2016 9:21:34 GMT -5
Whatever people think, I think Punk in UFC was better than the part time wrestlers for the simple reason Punk was there. He put his life on hold to train for this, undergoing surgery to fix nagging issues to help him be competitive, he promoted the show and did every appearance UFC would have asked every full time fighter to do, probably more so. Compare that to Lesnar and the Rock, or even Hulk in 1993 who took the belt he was never going to defend and effectively vanished from WWF TV until he lost it.
It may be a freak show fight, but it got people talking, got people to part with their money in a way the part timers at WWE never have and that benefited everyone on the card. Would someone else have loved his spot? Absolutely, but Joey Punchoke vs Mickey Gall wouldn't have done anything like as well and bonuses would have been lower up and down the card.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Sept 12, 2016 9:26:45 GMT -5
I didn't honestly care if he won or lost, it has no bearing on me as a fan of wrestling, since he isn't doing that anymore.
What fascinates me the most about any of this is that I didn't see anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who didn't think he was going to get destroyed. And I admit I do not frequent MMA sites, but I cannot imagine the sentiment there was any different.
Not even, 'well, maybe he has a chance if...'.
So, I wonder, did Punk truly believe he had a chance at all?
|
|
zappa
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 311
|
Post by zappa on Sept 12, 2016 9:32:29 GMT -5
Whatever people think, I think Punk in UFC was better than the part time wrestlers for the simple reason Punk was there. He put his life on hold to train for this, undergoing surgery to fix nagging issues to help him be competitive, he promoted the show and did every appearance UFC would have asked every full time fighter to do, probably more so. Compare that to Lesnar and the Rock, or even Hulk in 1993 who took the belt he was never going to defend and effectively vanished from WWF TV until he lost it. It may be a freak show fight, but it got people talking, got people to part with their money in a way the part timers at WWE never have and that benefited everyone on the card. Would someone else have loved his spot? Absolutely, but Joey Punchoke vs Mickey Gall wouldn't have done anything like as well and bonuses would have been lower up and down the card. Well he should give his money back if he really beleived what he said on what the likes of Rock and Lesnar got from WM29.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Sept 12, 2016 9:48:40 GMT -5
Whatever people think, I think Punk in UFC was better than the part time wrestlers for the simple reason Punk was there. He put his life on hold to train for this, undergoing surgery to fix nagging issues to help him be competitive, he promoted the show and did every appearance UFC would have asked every full time fighter to do, probably more so. Compare that to Lesnar and the Rock, or even Hulk in 1993 who took the belt he was never going to defend and effectively vanished from WWF TV until he lost it. It may be a freak show fight, but it got people talking, got people to part with their money in a way the part timers at WWE never have and that benefited everyone on the card. Would someone else have loved his spot? Absolutely, but Joey Punchoke vs Mickey Gall wouldn't have done anything like as well and bonuses would have been lower up and down the card. Well he should give his money back if he really beleived what he said on what the likes of Rock and Lesnar got from WM29. Why? Punk's gripe is based on the fact that Rock and Lesnar were parachuted in to the world championship scene in a way that did nothing for the people around them. Punk spent months effectively treading water with the world title, having meaningless feuds because everyone knew he was going to lose to the Rock, who would then take the belt and not defend it until Wrestlemania where he'd lose it to someone who's already as over as he's ever going to get. That does nothing for Punk, nothing for the WWE main event scene because the champ is clearly a placeholder and the guy with the belt isn't promoting the show, isn't doing much of anything to build the feud, hell, Lesnar basically said he couldn't give a **** if what he does damages the WWE's drawing ability. Punk didn't harm anyone's career by appearing on one card, he did a lot of work to prepare and in the build up just like everyone else. They didn't book anyone to look bad to build him up and he's not being gifted a title to disappear with for weeks on end and anyone displaced by Punk will get a fight on the next card. Punk got his clock cleaned, Gall will have a little momentum going into his next fight, everyone on the card likely got more money than they would have and Mr. Brooks will ride off into the sunset with a respect for the sport.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 12, 2016 9:49:18 GMT -5
It'd be pretty impossible to prove that Punk popped a buyrate much more than Rock given that the data without them on the respective shows is not available.
And honestly, people are talking yes, but they are also talking about how dumb this makes UFC look for one possible spike in ppv. Plus, if you put any legit fighter w a fanbase on there: Ronda, GSP, whoever; they would already exceed what Punk did buyrate wise presumably.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Sept 12, 2016 10:09:05 GMT -5
I don't want to get on the wrong side of certain posters, but I don't think that "wanting Punk to get humbled" and "wanting Punk to get injured" are even close to the same thing. But I also think that other people need to understand that THAT doesn't mean that they wanted to see him get seriously injured or whatever else along those lines. So you're saying if Punk had won, you'd have give him respect instead? Now everyones saying they knew he was going to get his ass kicked no matter what, but I saw some posts here by people even saying it wasn't fair to put him up against Gail for Gail's sake. If punk won, you'd still be wanting him to get destroyed so you could feel better and tell the guy (figuratively speaking) eat some humble pie, you've been a major asshole to others, you act like you're Gods gift, you're proud, a showoff and smug and impatient. You've been on easy street eating with a silver spoon and now it's satisfying to see you broken. It's satisfying to see the smug look wiped from your face. I can hold this against you no matter what, YOU LOST. You tried following your dreams? no YOU GOT YOUR ASS KICKED. You're going to act a bit more humble now? EXCUSE ME YOU'RE A LOSER. DON'T RETURN. WE DON'T NEED YOU. Those replies are all in this thread, albeit not all from you personally. My point is, a lot of the people who dislike Punk wouldn't have changed. If he'd really won and showed off his skills, they'd have a lot of hate anyway, and they'd still eb waiting for that big 'humbling' or 'karma' for being an asshole, as they call it. Now people are saying "whats the big deal? I didn't want him put in the grave, i never asked for him to die from a ruptured spleen in the ring and have all his family die in a fire, I just metaphorically said that I hope he gets killed in the ring and that he has his figurative balls kicked down his throat." Personally I give Punk respect for what he did, and I don't feel others are showing that here. Do you 'have' to respect punk? No, but don't act surprised and hurt when fans of the guy try to give him his due. Was he out of his element? Yes, this fight showed that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Was it fun seeing him lose so spectacularly? Yes in one sense, to see how quickly and how onesided the fight was, but beyond the fight itself, I think the guy deserves a round of applause. Just like when the Giants come to some dirtbag field and absolutely demolish the home town boys. Still, props for trying. I know it's popular to act indignant now "how DARE you tell me who i can and can't boo, this is the internet, get real" and no one is saying that you can't, but no matter who it is, the vitrol should be toned down and held in check. There's laughing at the fight and thinking 'man Punk got his ass kicked!' and there's grim faced posters here going ' It's about time too. He was too big of himself and I hated him. Now I hope he goes away forever'. The former is understandable, the latter is kind of worrying, because I can't think of a single thing Punk has done to really warrant that kind of extreme dislike towards himself from anyone, and it speaks more about the person who hates him then it does about the person CM Punk. The internet argument is no defence. "Oh it's the internet so what if I say I hope Punk's mom got raped?" Now while nobody here went quite that explicit, that's the kind of attitude we see on here, that it's ok to unashamedly,unabashedly hate someone for any reason they desire. That it's ok to literally hate a person for anything, and because ITZ THE NET! their reason for hating doesn't have to be rational, it doesn't have to be logical or fair and it doesn't even have to make sense. I know, i know "lolz life aint fair, get ballz bro, crap rolls downhill" (ie I'm a douchebag) style responses are common to give to anyone suggesting this kind of self policing from other posters. Maybe nothing will change. Or maybe....just maybe..... Did I know Punk would get beaten badly? No, but I had a strong suspension. Suspended just for not knowing Punk would get beaten badly? I don't quite see the direct parallel between Punk's annoyance at WWE using part timers and the way he got to UFC. Initially, yes, it seems similar, a celebrity getting a main card spot based on little more than name recognition, but there's a world of difference between a worked sport and a shoot one (e.g. if UFC was worked Punk would've at least looked competitive, that way they could keep bringing him back to pop buyrates), plus UFC doesn't have the enormous "work 300 matches a year vs. work just Mania, Rumble, and SummerSlam" schedule issue. Beyond that, if Punk was still wrestling I don't think he'd turn down a Lesnar-esque schedule, but he's the worker, not the promoter, he'd only really be a hypocrite about it all if he was in a powerful enough position to book a show and then he started relying on part timers. You're right. There isn't a parallel between Punk complaining about part-timers and him having a UFC slot. What happend in UFC was much worse. There are people in the UFC more deserving of the spot and had to pay their dues to get there, but Dana saw money in Punk and he got 'privilege' to be in the main slot when he didn't deserve it. At least in the WWE, CM Punk still could work and still got paid even if he wasn't in the main event. Same can't be said by many hungry 25+ year old fighters busting their ass off just to get to UFC. It's different because your stock is dependent on your win/loss record, rather than the owner liking your more. I partially blame Punk because he should have known better not to take food off of other people's table, but I also blame Dana for being a bigger carny than Vince. You're going to have to explain why it was ok for LT to be the main event in a Wrestlemania when he had only been associated with the sport for a few months, then it was for Punk who actually had to do a lot more training than LT ever did for the WM 11 match, arguably got paid less, and won't stick around 'taking up valuable TV time and spots' from other hungry young 25+ year old fighters. That's like saying they shouldn't have put Hulk Hogan in Mr Nanny, they should have given it to some up and coming actor who'd worked in the game and could give a better performance than Hogan could. Did Butterbean deserve to be at WrestleMania? No, but that's what happened. (or was it Raw afterwards? Now I'm confused. Anyway........) Punk deserved to be a novelty act based on his brand recognition alone, and that's essentially what he was. He came in, got his ass kicked and all parties involved made money from that. Punk took food off other people's table? Dana would not have offered that much money to any of these other metaphorical 25 year olds you're referencing in this spot. None of them were worth as much as Punk, so none of them would have generated the amount of money that belays such a fitting Salary as Punk had. I'm sorry, did Dana lose money? Are none of them allowed to have a chance now because of Punk? Was there a hungry young fighter living off of cardboard and eggs who only had one time, one shot to make it on Saturday, before Dana told him "sorry kid, Punk's taking ouyr spot" and let him go, where he drunk himself to death because of the one missed opportunity forever denied to him because of CM Punk? Bigger name brands bring more money and more recognition to your company. That SHOULD eventually translate into more chances via training and extra Tv time for exposure for these hungry hungry hippo fighters. They should have been hoping Punk would become a big draw, translating to more money for them ALL on the card. Ok, maybe that's 50/50, but I don't see this whole shot stealing scenario you're talking about. By that stature, Mike Tyson stole food from Earl Hebners table by refeering at WM 14. Shame on you Tyson! go feed those starving kids! This is not an Arquette situation, where the whole company and the prestige of the brand, title and opponent Gail all came off looking hurt as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 12, 2016 10:24:22 GMT -5
If Punk would have won, I woulda said I was wrong
And yeah, this did tarnish a little of the legitimacy of the promotion for the sake of a sideshow; given that it is supposed to be the elite of real fighters
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 12, 2016 10:43:32 GMT -5
I don't quite see the direct parallel between Punk's annoyance at WWE using part timers and the way he got to UFC. Initially, yes, it seems similar, a celebrity getting a main card spot based on little more than name recognition, but there's a world of difference between a worked sport and a shoot one (e.g. if UFC was worked Punk would've at least looked competitive, that way they could keep bringing him back to pop buyrates), plus UFC doesn't have the enormous "work 300 matches a year vs. work just Mania, Rumble, and SummerSlam" schedule issue. Beyond that, if Punk was still wrestling I don't think he'd turn down a Lesnar-esque schedule, but he's the worker, not the promoter, he'd only really be a hypocrite about it all if he was in a powerful enough position to book a show and then he started relying on part timers. You're right. There isn't a parallel between Punk complaining about part-timers and him having a UFC slot. What happend in UFC was much worse. There are people in the UFC more deserving of the spot and had to pay their dues to get there, but Dana saw money in Punk and he got 'privilege' to be in the main slot when he didn't deserve it. At least in the WWE, CM Punk still could work and still got paid even if he wasn't in the main event. Same can't be said by many hungry 25+ year old fighters busting their ass off just to get to UFC. It's different because your stock is dependent on your win/loss record, rather than the owner liking your more. I partially blame Punk because he should have known better not to take food off of other people's table, but I also blame Dana for being a bigger carny than Vince. I can't agree on that: Punk did get that spot due to his name recognition, absolutely, but Punk had to go through the same training regimen and preparations that any other fighter has to go through. He didn't get to parachute in and take the headlining payday away, he had to at the very least go through what every fighter, top or bottom of the card, has to go through to prepare for a UFC card. Meantime the past few years saw the Rock getting blown up after less than five minutes and Brock curtailing what he was willing to do in matches with guys like Ambrose; not saying those guys shouldn't take the positions offered to them, but there's less equivalence there, for me. That said, yes, I think Dana pulled a huge carny act here, and should be raked over the coals for it. I just think the charge of "hypocrisy" is misplaced since Punk was not in a position to do much about the "part timer" thing except to say that he thought it sucked; if Punk was in a booking position and doing the stuff he claimed to hate, then go ahead and charge hypocrisy, but the onus in these situations is on the person in charge of the promotion, not the worker.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Sept 12, 2016 10:52:50 GMT -5
If Punk would have won, I woulda said I was wrong And yeah, this did tarnish a little of the legitimacy of the promotion for the sake of a sideshow; given that it is supposed to be the elite of real fighters Dana White and Joe Rogan are the mouthpieces of the promotion, it was already a sideshow long before they hired anyone from the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 12, 2016 11:05:41 GMT -5
Rogan and Dana being spokespeople doesn't address the argument at all
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 12, 2016 11:08:15 GMT -5
There is hypocrisy though in that Punk clearly benefit from something similar though not exactly the same. It can't be bad for one and hunky dory for the other.
It was a smart move, but he did do a variation of the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 11:45:15 GMT -5
You're right. There isn't a parallel between Punk complaining about part-timers and him having a UFC slot. What happend in UFC was much worse. There are people in the UFC more deserving of the spot and had to pay their dues to get there, but Dana saw money in Punk and he got 'privilege' to be in the main slot when he didn't deserve it. At least in the WWE, CM Punk still could work and still got paid even if he wasn't in the main event. Same can't be said by many hungry 25+ year old fighters busting their ass off just to get to UFC. It's different because your stock is dependent on your win/loss record, rather than the owner liking your more. I partially blame Punk because he should have known better not to take food off of other people's table, but I also blame Dana for being a bigger carny than Vince. I can't agree on that: Punk did get that spot due to his name recognition, absolutely, but Punk had to go through the same training regimen and preparations that any other fighter has to go through. He didn't get to parachute in and take the headlining payday away, he had to at the very least go through what every fighter, top or bottom of the card, has to go through to prepare for a UFC card. Meantime the past few years saw the Rock getting blown up after less than five minutes and Brock curtailing what he was willing to do in matches with guys like Ambrose; not saying those guys shouldn't take the positions offered to them, but there's less equivalence there, for me. That said, yes, I think Dana pulled a huge carny act here, and should be raked over the coals for it. I just think the charge of "hypocrisy" is misplaced since Punk was not in a position to do much about the "part timer" thing except to say that he thought it sucked; if Punk was in a booking position and doing the stuff he claimed to hate, then go ahead and charge hypocrisy, but the onus in these situations is on the person in charge of the promotion, not the worker. I do agree that neither of them should have gone and be at the level they should have been when they came back, but at the same thing WWE and UFC are different animals. UFC, at least in theory, is less about putting on a spectacular show and more about showcasing the best of the world. Bellator is showcasing carny and tomato can fights, which makes the sport look very bad. Can you imagine the Olympics pulling this shit? Some celebrity, lets say Matt Damon, comes in and wants a spot at the Gymnastics sport because it was on his bucket list. You know damn well people will be pissed and rightfully so. Punk said in the interview that he was going to work up the ranks but Dana offered him a deal and he took it. I agree, like you and me, we all would have taken this deal, but the fact that CM Punk complained about the very same thing that he saw happening in the WWE makes him look very hypocritical. That is what gets me here, along with burying Ryback, WWE Doctors, Rusev, and plenty of others from his podcast. You're going to have to explain why it was ok for LT to be the main event in a Wrestlemania when he had only been associated with the sport for a few months, then it was for Punk who actually had to do a lot more training than LT ever did for the WM 11 match, arguably got paid less, and won't stick around 'taking up valuable TV time and spots' from other hungry young 25+ year old fighters. That's like saying they shouldn't have put Hulk Hogan in Mr Nanny, they should have given it to some up and coming actor who'd worked in the game and could give a better performance than Hogan could. Did Butterbean deserve to be at WrestleMania? No, but that's what happened. (or was it Raw afterwards? Now I'm confused. Anyway........) Punk deserved to be a novelty act based on his brand recognition alone, and that's essentially what he was. He came in, got his ass kicked and all parties involved made money from that. Punk took food off other people's table? Dana would not have offered that much money to any of these other metaphorical 25 year olds you're referencing in this spot. None of them were worth as much as Punk, so none of them would have generated the amount of money that belays such a fitting Salary as Punk had. I'm sorry, did Dana lose money? Are none of them allowed to have a chance now because of Punk? Was there a hungry young fighter living off of cardboard and eggs who only had one time, one shot to make it on Saturday, before Dana told him "sorry kid, Punk's taking ouyr spot" and let him go, where he drunk himself to death because of the one missed opportunity forever denied to him because of CM Punk? Bigger name brands bring more money and more recognition to your company. That SHOULD eventually translate into more chances via training and extra Tv time for exposure for these hungry hungry hippo fighters. They should have been hoping Punk would become a big draw, translating to more money for them ALL on the card. Ok, maybe that's 50/50, but I don't see this whole shot stealing scenario you're talking about. By that stature, Mike Tyson stole food from Earl Hebners table by refeering at WM 14. Shame on you Tyson! go feed those starving kids! This is not an Arquette situation, where the whole company and the prestige of the brand, title and opponent Gail all came off looking hurt as a result. You're right, this isn't an Arquette sitaution, because David Arquette felt really bad about the whole WCW fiasco and donated his money to charity. This isn't anything like the LT situation. WWE is sports entertainment and people will buy LT beating up Bam Bam Bigelow, even though if this was the shoot fight I'm sure Bam Bam would win. If Punk deserved to be a novelty act in UFC, then so does Kevin James and few other UFC enthusiasts. The fact that Punk went shot up the UFC main card without paying his dues tells me he cares less about the sport and more about himself. The issue here, unlike WWE and it's fans, no one would buy into it and call it BS, because we all know wrestling is scripted and it is more about putting on a show rather than showcasing the best of the best. It doesn't matter how much these up-and-coming 25 years get paid, they put their heart into working towards fighting in the UFC, not for the money, but to be #1 in their sport. This is what pisses me off about this whole thing and what pisses me off about Dana. The man cares more about ratings and money than bringing legitimacy to the sport.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Sept 12, 2016 11:49:05 GMT -5
The UFC doesn't have a great reputation because the guy running the show is seen as being like Vince, an obnoxious carnie who seems to spend half of his time feuding with his own fighters and actual journalists that cover the sport and Joe Rogan isn't much better. Hiring Punk neither harms nor improves the reputation of the sport, no more than hiring Kurt Angle or Lesnar the first time when he was a highly sought after college athlete improved the WWE's reputation, it's seen as a publicity would have stunt and will be forgotten in 2-3 months.
No-ones career will be derailed by this, the UFC title scenes are untouched, the people who would have main evented on this show without Punk main evented the show and will be paid just the same, likely more if early tales of the buyrate are true. This is not comparable to The Rock or Lesnar, this isn't even LT, this is Cody Rhodes vs Steven Amell, a young guy vs a hard working outsider with no real repercussions after the event. Dumb and unwanted? Yes, but it is what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 12:01:13 GMT -5
I don't quite see the direct parallel between Punk's annoyance at WWE using part timers and the way he got to UFC. Initially, yes, it seems similar, a celebrity getting a main card spot based on little more than name recognition, but there's a world of difference between a worked sport and a shoot one (e.g. if UFC was worked Punk would've at least looked competitive, that way they could keep bringing him back to pop buyrates), plus UFC doesn't have the enormous "work 300 matches a year vs. work just Mania, Rumble, and SummerSlam" schedule issue. Beyond that, if Punk was still wrestling I don't think he'd turn down a Lesnar-esque schedule, but he's the worker, not the promoter, he'd only really be a hypocrite about it all if he was in a powerful enough position to book a show and then he started relying on part timers. You're right. There isn't a parallel between Punk complaining about part-timers and him having a UFC slot. What happend in UFC was much worse. There are people in the UFC more deserving of the spot and had to pay their dues to get there, but Dana saw money in Punk and he got 'privilege' to be in the main slot when he didn't deserve it. At least in the WWE, CM Punk still could work and still got paid even if he wasn't in the main event. Same can't be said by many hungry 25+ year old fighters busting their ass off just to get to UFC. It's different because your stock is dependent on your win/loss record, rather than the owner liking your more. I partially blame Punk because he should have known better not to take food off of other people's table, but I also blame Dana for being a bigger carny than Vince. Whose spot did he take that isn't going to get it now because of Punk? UFC has a pretty standard measure for success in terms of guys who win get PPV matches and guys who lose don't. They have a pretty clear ranking system, it's quite transparent where everyone stands, this isn't WWE where guys can shoot to the top critics be damned, guys who win get spots. This was one match in a sea of PPV matches and now Punk probably sails off now like it never even happened in the first place. Some people get into UFC via reality shows, some do it just by grinding away and earning it. Punk is a rare instance of coming in based on who he is and the benefit of MMA is that if he's not any good he won't be there long. I see the arguments that it's lacking in integrity on UFC's part and I can definitely understand that, Punk in no way deserved to be there at all. But in terms of equating this to a part-time wrestler like the Rock, being given a Wrestlemania main event slot a year in advance no matter what, I don't see that. It was just a high profile squash match for Mickey Gall, and now Gall is on the UFC radar and for all we know he can end up being a great fighter, and he got his foot in the door thanks to Punk. They deserve points for at least presenting this match very realistically, it was pretty in the open that this was essentially a make-a-wish for Punk, that his odds weren't high and he's out of his element in the first place and it went about how anyone could have believed it would. The only problem with this match long-term is if this becomes a recurring habit of UFC to give handouts to people, but as it stands right now it's pretty harmless I think. What would be really bad is if they found some other famous person to fight him, or someone just as inexperienced as him to try and make it easier for him, but they didn't, they gave him a challenging opponent, and basically used this match as an example to show that not just anyone can do this even with two years of training prior.
|
|