|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Jun 15, 2021 14:43:28 GMT -5
Punk looked like someone who never stepped inside a gym. Wrestling is based on looks as much as in-ring and promo ability. None of the Shield members are jacked to the gills, and neither is Daniel Bryan but they all look well-built, tough and athletic, and they are a similar size to Punk. It wouldn't have hurt Punk to pile on some natural muscle mass, but its a moot point given his success in wrestling. I mean Jake Roberts was never in the greatest shape either and nobody ever complains about that. If I recall, his peers lambasted his physique on the Dark Side of the Ring episode about Grizzly Smith and said he had to develop psychology to stand out. Not to mention, Jake is a BIG bastard, muscular physique or not. But with Punk...the smaller size compared to his peers, a boss that adores physiques, I don't know, he could have been more than he was.
|
|
mc74
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,410
|
Post by mc74 on Jun 15, 2021 15:19:39 GMT -5
As bad as Punk's MMA run was, his treatment of Colt Cabana, and how badly it reflected on his image afterwards, I still fondly look back on what he's accomplished within the world of professional wrestling and I can't help but appreciate the moments he's given us fans throughout the years. Does it taint his legacy somewhat? Yes, but not enough to be considered on a grand scale.
Punk is most certainly a polarizing figure, but it's hard to deny he was one of the biggest standouts in his era, as well as one of WWE's brightest spots in the early 2010s.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jun 15, 2021 16:23:15 GMT -5
People are misunderstanding some of what I meant about the multifaceted affect UFC had on his legacy. It's also because he cut however many promos complaining about lack of opportunity for hard working wrestlers, like himself, with main event spots taken by the undeserving famous people. And how exactly did Punk get a UFC contract? Like, it was his dream and they paid him. He would be an idiot to say no to the offer. I don't judge Phil Brooks, the person, for taking that chance. But he was a guy who cut shoot promos as a huge part of his gimmick. Promos about people doing in wrestling exactly what he did in UFC. It undermines what the character stands for. And this is exactly why I said everyone forgets that he acknowledged he was wrong about the Rock. He changed his mind. When he was still an active wrestler. Because he saw evidence that contradicted his previous viewpoint (and, it should be noted, he later worked with Rock). Then he accepted UFC's offer to be a special attraction and drew money for them. There is no contradiction here unless you conflate his wrestling character with himself as a human being. Like, you say you don't judge Phil Brooks for taking the offer but if you don't.... then what's the problem exactly? Does Brock Lesnar undermine his character if he stands in a line to buy groceries? I don't judge him for it. It just makes the work less entertaining in hindsight. Brock didn't build entire angles around promos he cut about not going to the supermarket? Plus acknowledging he was wrong about The Rock like... The Rock didn't actually do the same thing anyway. The Rock came back to the thing that made him famous, to not work very many matches but make a shitload of money for everyone involved, because he is a megastar in that industry. Punk is the one that invaded another industry and took a spot from somebody else, whoever that might have been. Also, when did he acknowledge he was wrong about that? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm guessing it didn't get loads of TV focus during one of the biggest drawing angles in wrestling history, it's probably forever doomed to be forgotten on that basis if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jun 15, 2021 16:25:59 GMT -5
CM Punk, to me, is a guy forever tarnished by the fact that he got humiliated in the UFC, especially by a guy widely considered a tomato can. Yes, all WWE entertainers would get destroyed in the UFC, but that's why they stay away, and we never have to see that. In Punk's case, we saw it. And I will never ever be able to take him seriously as a wrestler again. As far as I'm concerned, he should just stay away. Also, he is a massive whiner and seems like an idiot, so I don't miss him. I remember checking the ratings during his title reign back in the day, and people would change the channel when he was on. Multiple times. Punk was never as over as people make him out to be; the arena reactions are never the whole story in modern day WWE. He was a good talker, a very good talker. That's about it. He was always sloppy and botch prone in the ring, he seemed to never really be able to figure out what his style was, or what he represented. He had great chemistry with a few guys, namely John Cena, but it was Cena carrying Punk to those classics, not the other way around. John Cena, the most underrated wrestler in history. Punk has his place in history, he was a pretty cool character and definitely one of the better promos in the post-Rock and Austin era, but he was not the guy, and he was never going to be the guy. While I never felt Punk was bad in the ring or needed to be carried, I do believe that Cena in some respects still hasn’t gotten the credit for how much he contributed to the success of their matches/programs. Some Punk fans paint Cena as this warm body Punk just bounced off of, or just a generic company figurehead, as if any fool could have played that role. Not true in the slightest. John had the storytelling ability and panache on interviews to make that feud must-see. The promo he cut with Vince where he demanded Punk get the match doesn’t get enough love. This angle would never have worked with anybody else. It just wouldn't. It had to be Cena. Cena was arguably not the single biggest star on the roster - there were people like Taker or Batista around, but neither of them had a chance doing the mic work to keep up with Punk in this angle. Triple H could arguably keep up on the mic, but wasn't a big enough star, and his character didn't allow for the things Punk was saying. There just really wasn't anybody else around who was at that perfect point of success and talent. This angle is absolutely nothing without it being Cena.
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on Jun 15, 2021 16:26:34 GMT -5
I can’t defend the stuff with Cabana & I honestly haven’t followed those developments that closely. When he walked out, he was one of the most over babyfaces they had, and if he walked back in the door today he’d be just as over. He felt that WWE was taking advantage of him, wanting him to work injured, trying to make him look bad etc. He clearly had enough money in the bank and had other opportunities regardless of the level of success in their outcomes that allowed him to avoid going back to Vince with his tail between his legs.
He’s a hall of famer in my eyes, but likely won’t get inducted any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jun 15, 2021 19:28:21 GMT -5
Also, the subtext of Cm Punk being the person who deserved the title and John Cena being wrongfully given all his chances really rubs me wrong the older I get.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Jun 15, 2021 19:50:39 GMT -5
He was good, matter fact great
He was right in some areas and I feel wrong in others. His character will be remembered more so than the title reign
|
|
Blade
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by Blade on Jun 16, 2021 2:11:02 GMT -5
I don't judge him for it. It just makes the work less entertaining in hindsight. Brock didn't build entire angles around promos he cut about not going to the supermarket? Brock has for a long time a larger than life character who would, for instance, come in and completely trash the boss's office and wreck everyone in his way for a perceived slight. It's hard to imagine such a character meekly waiting in line for groceries. But if you like, I can shift it to Undertaker buying groceries. And dont get me wrong, what makes something less entertaining in hindsight for you is of course entirely your business. I just don't see how it reflects poorly on the actual person or undermines what the character stood for, because the character and the person aren't the same. Plus acknowledging he was wrong about The Rock like... The Rock didn't actually do the same thing anyway. The Rock came back to the thing that made him famous, to not work very many matches but make a shitload of money for everyone involved, because he is a megastar in that industry. Punk is the one that invaded another industry and took a spot from somebody else, whoever that might have been. The argument was essentially that the sufficiently big special attraction would draw more eyes to the product and thus also be good for everyone else, and thus actually create spots for other people rather than take them away. By being a draw for UFC (which his first fight was), and by verbally putting over his opponent, Punk did the same thing. I think it's safe to say Mickey Gall became considerably better known due to that fight. Now, was that worth Punk's paycheque? I dunno, I don't have UFC's books or any data on audience retention of the new people that watched for Punk. But the theory was absolutely the same. Also, when did he acknowledge he was wrong about that? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm guessing it didn't get loads of TV focus during one of the biggest drawing angles in wrestling history, it's probably forever doomed to be forgotten on that basis if nothing else. Interview shortly after the first Wrestlemania headlined by Rock/Cena. This is why I say you're conflating the real person with the character. Who *cares* what CM Punk the character said? We're talking about the actual person, not the character cutting a promo that always blended elements of fiction (let's not forget the original pipe bomb promo was delivered as a heel and had lots of heel rhetoric) and reality. CM Punk the character also smeared himself in Paul Bearer's ashes, which he did in a featured program way past the pipe bomb promo. Do we judge Punk the real person based on that? If not, on what basis do we judge him based on his character's opinions in a previous angle which were a) never completely identical to Punk's real opinions, and b) ones which in real life he changed his mind about years before he went to UFC? Just because the pipe bomb promo very cleverly blended kayfabe and real life doesn't mean we have to.
|
|
Scoops
ALF
Potato Clown
Posts: 1,129
|
Post by Scoops on Jun 16, 2021 2:37:35 GMT -5
Punk just doesn't come across as a particularly nice person. The kind who you could be friends with for a long time and then one day, he'll cut off all contact with you, or actively go after you for some minor or imagined slight. Unfortunately, the surly, anti-social, asshole personality ran into cold hard reality in MMA. I honestly think that’s just his upbringing. While we only have his side of the story from the documentary, the idea that he felt so isolated from his family that he basically adopted his ex girlfriend’s as his own, plus the restraining order he filed against his mother, makes it easy to believe that he’s completely willing to cut someone out of his life if he feels at risk of being hurt again.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Jun 16, 2021 4:38:44 GMT -5
In a fair world, Punk's MMA career would have no bearing on his legacy. And I think for many people, it doesn't. But for me, Punk's MMA career completely undermined almost everything that his character - which like many wrestlers, is basically his own personality turned up to 11 - stood for. His absolute demolition in those fights he did have also makes it hard to take his kayfabe wrestling tough guy stuff seriously, like squaring up to someone like Cena or The Rock, who I can only assume would murder him by accident even without combat sports training. Don't get me wrong, this is fake fighting. I am a proponent of intergender wrestling and people like Rey Mysterio being world champions. But Punk shot his mouth off so much, and then went and got creamed. I'm embarrassed for him. And it's a real shame, because I think his body of work has some truly extraordinary peaks in it. Apart from anything else I think he deserves the primary credit and/or blame for the Reality Era we live in now. That pipe bomb promo really did change the whole industry, especially WWE. That MITB 2011 match is still in my all-time top 10. But I can't see him do his entrance without seeing that crab walk into oblivion. And I can't hear him cut a promo about being held back without wondering how much his UFC contract works out as per hour of fight time, and how many people who could destroy him that quickly will never, ever, ever make it onto a curtain jerk fight for Bellator. And I don't even like MMA! Bam Bam Bigelow got his ass beat thoroughly by Kimo Leopold, a very talented fighter. The same guy who would have beat Vader's ass had thst fight not been cancelled. Del Rio infamously got his face kicked off by one of the baddest fighters in the world at that time. Sting got his ass whooped by Dick Slater. DDP got mauled by Scott Steiner. Plenty of guys with great reputations in-ring got their ass whipped outside of it. I think the thing that a lot of wrestling fans hold against Punk is that he was done with them before they were done with him. In wrestling, we're used to guys like Flair sticking around forever or even guys like Bryan or Edge or Terry Funk calling it quits at a reasonable time and then coming back. Even in sports when someone like Barry Sanders who was the king of Detroit wants to call it a career early, people turn on them harshly calling them a quitter or seflish out of what I can only gather is fans feeling rejected. Do I think it's funny that Punk overestimated his ability to fight actual fighters? Yes, it's quite funny. Do I hold it against his wrestling career or see why people rooted for his failure in other avenues? Not really.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jun 16, 2021 4:39:37 GMT -5
Also, the subtext of Cm Punk being the person who deserved the title and John Cena being wrongfully given all his chances really rubs me wrong the older I get. Couldn't agree more. I get his character was supposed to be an outspoken rebel, and it was a hot program anyway, but I always wished WWE had focused more on how in kayfabe, Cena was going to be a physically tough obstacle for Punk to overcome, rather than the "you're more marketable to corporate America and that is automatically bad" aspect.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jun 16, 2021 4:46:22 GMT -5
Are people really that mad about Cena getting all the chances? People hated his booking, but understood why he was the guy during his reign. While Punk was active, most of the ire seemed to be directed toward Triple H, who took a machete to Punk while he was at his hottest so he could steal his heat and work a program with his buddy. That's was focal point of the rage, and still is.
Cena put Punk over to kick his hot angle off, no drama, no politics, that came from Hunter's involvement as both guys were basicslly used to put him over.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jun 16, 2021 4:49:07 GMT -5
Strictly saying within WWE, it's legit Hall of Fame worthy. It's just, yeah, the company that would be able to push and glorify him the most currently aren't interested in giving him any shine.
We know about his credentials, sure, but to the wider public it's not got much traction due to that. And arguably also because that, when he was hot, it wasn't for that long a period of time.
The stuff outside the WWE, like the UFC flop/hypocrisy and so on, is a different thing. I really don't think he's near as bitter and misanthropic as some say. But, still kinda is.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jun 16, 2021 6:26:26 GMT -5
Also, the subtext of Cm Punk being the person who deserved the title and John Cena being wrongfully given all his chances really rubs me wrong the older I get. Couldn't agree more. I get his character was supposed to be an outspoken rebel, and it was a hot program anyway, but I always wished WWE had focused more on how in kayfabe, Cena was going to be a physically tough obstacle for Punk to overcome, rather than the "you're more marketable to corporate America and that is automatically bad" aspect. His name was Punk though. And Punk did give plenty of respect to Cena as a challenge and a wrestler in his promos. Cena just also stood for everything he wasn't, and he couldn't really have been the antiestablishment face he was if Punk didn't play that angle.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jun 16, 2021 14:53:24 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. I get his character was supposed to be an outspoken rebel, and it was a hot program anyway, but I always wished WWE had focused more on how in kayfabe, Cena was going to be a physically tough obstacle for Punk to overcome, rather than the "you're more marketable to corporate America and that is automatically bad" aspect. His name was Punk though. And Punk did give plenty of respect to Cena as a challenge and a wrestler in his promos. Cena just also stood for everything he wasn't, and he couldn't really have been the antiestablishment face he was if Punk didn't play that angle. Well, Punk in kayfabe did want his own jet (that smelled better than Vince’s) and more collector’s cups. He was very much a punk, but not an anti-profit one to be fair, and he was aiming for that commercial recognition.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jun 16, 2021 15:03:31 GMT -5
I don't judge him for it. It just makes the work less entertaining in hindsight. Brock didn't build entire angles around promos he cut about not going to the supermarket? Brock has for a long time a larger than life character who would, for instance, come in and completely trash the boss's office and wreck everyone in his way for a perceived slight. It's hard to imagine such a character meekly waiting in line for groceries. But if you like, I can shift it to Undertaker buying groceries. And dont get me wrong, what makes something less entertaining in hindsight for you is of course entirely your business. I just don't see how it reflects poorly on the actual person or undermines what the character stood for, because the character and the person aren't the same. Plus acknowledging he was wrong about The Rock like... The Rock didn't actually do the same thing anyway. The Rock came back to the thing that made him famous, to not work very many matches but make a shitload of money for everyone involved, because he is a megastar in that industry. Punk is the one that invaded another industry and took a spot from somebody else, whoever that might have been. The argument was essentially that the sufficiently big special attraction would draw more eyes to the product and thus also be good for everyone else, and thus actually create spots for other people rather than take them away. By being a draw for UFC (which his first fight was), and by verbally putting over his opponent, Punk did the same thing. I think it's safe to say Mickey Gall became considerably better known due to that fight. Now, was that worth Punk's paycheque? I dunno, I don't have UFC's books or any data on audience retention of the new people that watched for Punk. But the theory was absolutely the same. Also, when did he acknowledge he was wrong about that? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm guessing it didn't get loads of TV focus during one of the biggest drawing angles in wrestling history, it's probably forever doomed to be forgotten on that basis if nothing else. Interview shortly after the first Wrestlemania headlined by Rock/Cena. This is why I say you're conflating the real person with the character. Who *cares* what CM Punk the character said? We're talking about the actual person, not the character cutting a promo that always blended elements of fiction (let's not forget the original pipe bomb promo was delivered as a heel and had lots of heel rhetoric) and reality. CM Punk the character also smeared himself in Paul Bearer's ashes, which he did in a featured program way past the pipe bomb promo. Do we judge Punk the real person based on that? If not, on what basis do we judge him based on his character's opinions in a previous angle which were a) never completely identical to Punk's real opinions, and b) ones which in real life he changed his mind about years before he went to UFC? Just because the pipe bomb promo very cleverly blended kayfabe and real life doesn't mean we have to. You know what. This is all totally fair. That said. Bam Bam Bigelow got his ass beat thoroughly by Kimo Leopold, a very talented fighter. The same guy who would have beat Vader's ass had thst fight not been cancelled. Del Rio infamously got his face kicked off by one of the baddest fighters in the world at that time. Sting got his ass whooped by Dick Slater. DDP got mauled by Scott Steiner. Plenty of guys with great reputations in-ring got their ass whipped outside of it. I think the thing that a lot of wrestling fans hold against Punk is that he was done with them before they were done with him. In wrestling, we're used to guys like Flair sticking around forever or even guys like Bryan or Edge or Terry Funk calling it quits at a reasonable time and then coming back. Even in sports when someone like Barry Sanders who was the king of Detroit wants to call it a career early, people turn on them harshly calling them a quitter or seflish out of what I can only gather is fans feeling rejected. Do I think it's funny that Punk overestimated his ability to fight actual fighters? Yes, it's quite funny. Do I hold it against his wrestling career or see why people rooted for his failure in other avenues? Not really. I think you have a point. I am always an advocate of 'this shit is fake.' I couldn't care less who could kick who's ass in a real fight, because it's wrestling, the whole reason I watch wrestling instead of any real sport is because I want to be entertained, not watch sport. I'm genuinely not bothered that he left wrestling, he was done - and I think the time where he could have come back and done anything except cut promos well has long passed. He's also one of the most influential wrestlers of all time, and should be in any halls of fame that exist for that. So what is it about Punk? Like, am I personally offended by some guy who's no idea who I am and never will, seems to dislike wrestling fans, generally?
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Jun 16, 2021 15:27:48 GMT -5
Brock has for a long time a larger than life character who would, for instance, come in and completely trash the boss's office and wreck everyone in his way for a perceived slight. It's hard to imagine such a character meekly waiting in line for groceries. But if you like, I can shift it to Undertaker buying groceries. And dont get me wrong, what makes something less entertaining in hindsight for you is of course entirely your business. I just don't see how it reflects poorly on the actual person or undermines what the character stood for, because the character and the person aren't the same. The argument was essentially that the sufficiently big special attraction would draw more eyes to the product and thus also be good for everyone else, and thus actually create spots for other people rather than take them away. By being a draw for UFC (which his first fight was), and by verbally putting over his opponent, Punk did the same thing. I think it's safe to say Mickey Gall became considerably better known due to that fight. Now, was that worth Punk's paycheque? I dunno, I don't have UFC's books or any data on audience retention of the new people that watched for Punk. But the theory was absolutely the same. Interview shortly after the first Wrestlemania headlined by Rock/Cena. This is why I say you're conflating the real person with the character. Who *cares* what CM Punk the character said? We're talking about the actual person, not the character cutting a promo that always blended elements of fiction (let's not forget the original pipe bomb promo was delivered as a heel and had lots of heel rhetoric) and reality. CM Punk the character also smeared himself in Paul Bearer's ashes, which he did in a featured program way past the pipe bomb promo. Do we judge Punk the real person based on that? If not, on what basis do we judge him based on his character's opinions in a previous angle which were a) never completely identical to Punk's real opinions, and b) ones which in real life he changed his mind about years before he went to UFC? Just because the pipe bomb promo very cleverly blended kayfabe and real life doesn't mean we have to. You know what. This is all totally fair. That said. Bam Bam Bigelow got his ass beat thoroughly by Kimo Leopold, a very talented fighter. The same guy who would have beat Vader's ass had thst fight not been cancelled. Del Rio infamously got his face kicked off by one of the baddest fighters in the world at that time. Sting got his ass whooped by Dick Slater. DDP got mauled by Scott Steiner. Plenty of guys with great reputations in-ring got their ass whipped outside of it. I think the thing that a lot of wrestling fans hold against Punk is that he was done with them before they were done with him. In wrestling, we're used to guys like Flair sticking around forever or even guys like Bryan or Edge or Terry Funk calling it quits at a reasonable time and then coming back. Even in sports when someone like Barry Sanders who was the king of Detroit wants to call it a career early, people turn on them harshly calling them a quitter or seflish out of what I can only gather is fans feeling rejected. Do I think it's funny that Punk overestimated his ability to fight actual fighters? Yes, it's quite funny. Do I hold it against his wrestling career or see why people rooted for his failure in other avenues? Not really. I think you have a point. I am always an advocate of 'this shit is fake.' I couldn't care less who could kick who's ass in a real fight, because it's wrestling, the whole reason I watch wrestling instead of any real sport is because I want to be entertained, not watch sport. I'm genuinely not bothered that he left wrestling, he was done - and I think the time where he could have come back and done anything except cut promos well has long passed. He's also one of the most influential wrestlers of all time, and should be in any halls of fame that exist for that. So what is it about Punk? Like, am I personally offended by some guy who's no idea who I am and never will, seems to dislike wrestling fans, generally? I wasn't really trying to say that you or this person or that person specifically dislike him only because he left. Just that at the time, his perception in online wrestling circles swung drastically from overwhelmingly positive to overwhelmingly negative and I think that had a lot to do with it. And this was before the Colt stuff really popped off. I was just making a standalone point, not really accusatory to you specifically. I didn't quite make that clear in my post, sorry.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,913
|
Post by Dub H on Jun 16, 2021 16:37:12 GMT -5
People are really gonna pretend he didmt brought a new eave of interest on wtestling that could har been big if WWE handt killed him in favor of the status quo?
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,017
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 16, 2021 17:36:03 GMT -5
People are really gonna pretend he didmt brought a new eave of interest on wtestling that could har been big if WWE handt killed him in favor of the status quo? Absolutely nobody is denying that, but in retrospect with how Punk has carried himself in the decade since he's made people sympathetic/empathetic to WWE's hesitance on not making him *the* guy.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,299
|
Post by Fade on Jun 16, 2021 17:43:24 GMT -5
People are really gonna pretend he didmt brought a new eave of interest on wtestling that could har been big if WWE handt killed him in favor of the status quo? Absolutely nobody is denying that, but in retrospect with how Punk has carried himself in the decade since he's made people sympathetic/empathetic to WWE's hesitance on not making him *the* guy. Wouldn’t even say sympathetic or empathetic as much as it just makes sense. ‘Member the fan altercation? Or his trigger-happy response to Miz? Not trying to judge, it’s partly that fire that brought him to the dance but still..
|
|