Foley claims Punk being held down

[anticonscience]

sports.ign.com/articles/770/770441p1.html

IGN Sports: That really goes back to all of the backstage politics described in the book. I read where you were one of the guys who recommended CM Punk to WWE.

Mick Foley: Yeah, I think the fact that both Ricky Steamboat and I recommended Punk had a little something to do with him being hired. Obviously you have two completely different guys representing two completely different styles recommending the same guy, and I can anticipate your next question, so yeah, I do think they have dropped the ball with CM Punk.

IGN Sports: When he came out for Survivor Series, the crowd was chanting "Punk" when he was out there with some of the biggest names in the sport, and what's funny is how often you hear that storylines are dictated by what the fans want.

Mick Foley: Well, in this case, I guess the fans were overridden. I do think it's backstage politics, and I'm not there so I don't have a real answer for you, but I know that it stinks and I don't like it.



**********
my bad if it's already been posted. I checked the first 3 pages and didnt see it

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

I just wanted to post in here before it became 20-some pages of people bickering.


That having been said ... it's possible. But I also think people cry "backstage politics!" waaaaaay too quickly these days.

Do they want Punk as WWE champion already? He's been in the company less than a year. Give it time - he's young.

[MGH]

Oh god, let me get this in before the immature fighting starts.


I disagree with Foley, obviously he would probably know better than I would, but from what I see going on now I just can't buy in to this "holding down" crap. He's going to be the only ECW guy in a main Wrestlemania match (MITB) and he's lost 2 one on one matches since July that I can remember. He's been in a PPV main event, and he's winning constantly. He isn't going to win everything in one year, he isn't Angle or Lesnar.

So sorry Foley, I can't go along with you on this one.

[Cypress]

hes better than Lesnar

[Ace Diamond]

Yeah I can't really go with Foley on this one either, it's not like anybody really expects (or wants) Punk to get a World title in less than a year.

[Phosphor Glow]

I like Punk, I love Foley, but I can't say I agree on this.

Then again, I honestly haven't really been paying attention with ECW...so I can't speak much.

Punk'll have his time unless WWE is really, really stupid.

But he hasn't been around for long...he doesn't need as big of a push as people think he does quite yet.

[amsiraK]

I think Mick's just pissing and moaning a little that his opinion isn't considered the top one. I love him and all, but this line:

Mick Foley: Yeah, I think the fact that both Ricky Steamboat and I recommended Punk had a little something to do with him being hired.

smacks of self-importance. I'm sure there was more to it than the two of them stumping for Punk.

[Deleted]

I don't really think he's being held down. I question the clean Holly victory over Punk but that's about it.

Having him overpushed and forced early would just cause him to die off that much sooner. He seems to be doing fine to me. They need to have him cut some promos rather than have him be a Jeff Hardy that just wrestles and hopes people continue to cheer.

[Reverend BTY]

I don't really think of "holding down" as just going straight for the title. For instance, he was one of the hottest stars in ECW when he first came in. Mainly, in my opinion, due to the promos he's cut. How many times has he been given the mic during the last few months, when rumors started to come out that he was being "held down"? I am not gonna say some guy in the back has some huge vendetta against Punk. However, I do think he has been misused terribly since post-Heyman ECW.

[Count Creepyhead]

Being held back from what? A main event push against the likes of HBK, Taker, Cena etc...

[Person With A Hat]

Held back doesn't necessarily mean that he's being held back for personal reasons. They could be holding him back until the current plans are over because they don't want to turn around.

A VERY optimistic view, but hey, it could be that.

[Kevin Hamilton]

I'm not there so I don't have a real answer for you

That's the part that resonated to me.

[Slim Loves Lily]

zeus said:

hes better than Lesnar

[Andrew is Good]

I think that it may have something to do with the fact that they didn't capitalize on the fact that Punk was over so huge, and I think that's what he may be talking about. That's just my opinion anyway.

I think they are slowing putting him to that spot though.

[Kevin Hamilton]

I like Punk alot, but I still like Lesnar more.

[I Got Heat]

WWE will wait till he's 40 to push him, so he fits in with the rest of their main eventers.

[Deleted]

Burn

[BHB]

cactusmatt said:

I just wanted to post in here before it became 20-some pages of people bickering.


That having been said ... it's possible. But I also think people cry "backstage politics!" waaaaaay too quickly these days.

Do they want Punk as WWE champion already? He's been in the company less than a year. Give it time - he's young.

No. We don't want Punk to be champion yet.

But we don't want him to be beaten clean by the 44 year Bob Holly who isn't over, has never been over and will never be over. The only thing of note the guy has done in five years is get his back cut up on a table in his match with RVD.

Nor do we want Punk to be beaten by a comedy loser like Matt Striker.

What point did those victories achieve? The fans didn't want it, it hasn't done anything for Holly, Striker or Punk.

It was just the bookers (particualry Arn Anderson) decided Punk was getting too big but wasn't as good as a real WWE superstar like Holly.

The main reason for Punk's de-push was because he was Heyman's favourite. The backlash against Heyman was taken out on Punk. After all, if he was liked by Heyman, who the booking team hated, then he must be overpushed right?

[Big Daddy Bad Booking]

CM Punk is a cult hero, but that doesn't mean he is champion material yet. Here's my solution: Take him off ECW, put him on RAW, book him for a year as a MITB winner, and then cash it against HHH, use the Pepsi Plunge, and win the title. Simple as that.

[volvic]

barneybhb said:

cactusmatt said:

I just wanted to post in here before it became 20-some pages of people bickering.


That having been said ... it's possible. But I also think people cry "backstage politics!" waaaaaay too quickly these days.

Do they want Punk as WWE champion already? He's been in the company less than a year. Give it time - he's young.

No. We don't want Punk to be champion yet.

But we don't want him to be beaten clean by the 44 year Bob Holly who isn't over, has never been over and will never be over. The only thing of note the guy has done in five years is get his back cut up on a table in his match with RVD.

Nor do we want Punk to be beaten by a comedy loser like Matt Striker.

What point did those victories achieve? The fans didn't want it, it hasn't done anything for Holly, Striker or Punk.

It was just the bookers (particualry Arn Anderson) decided Punk was getting too big but wasn't as good as a real WWE superstar like Holly.

The main reason for Punk's de-push was because he was Heyman's favourite. The backlash against Heyman was taken out on Punk. After all, if he was liked by Heyman, who the booking team hated, then he must be overpushed right?

I don't think that is the whole reason. Maybe Punk really does have a bit of an attitude problem backstage. Maybe they want to give him a gradual push, which would make a welcome change in comparison to the Lashley-esque pushes they've been giving to some people...or maybe the face just doesn't fit.