Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on Mar 6, 2007 18:18:50 GMT -5
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. Not every match has to have the fate of the company in the balance you know. As a matter of fact, I believe that win-loss records mean almost nothing in the wrestling world. That kind of stuff holds no long term bearing on the fate of many wrestlers. Take JBL for example. Months before he became the wall street tycoon, he was nothing more then a jobber. He got over as a champion pretty quickly. In 2 months most people would have forgotten that he lost to Holly and Striker. Hell Randy Orton has been on a losing streak for what seems like forever, yet all it takes is a killer promo or feud to make him a credible contender or even champion. Is CM Punk being held down? Maybe in terms of what he can do in the ring, but that's only because of the style of matches the WWE offers. He has been called the future of (at least) ECW many times, even by IWC "favorite" HHH during a major PPV. Just because his win-loss record isn't more impressive then Goldberg's or he doesn't own every title belt in the company doesn't mean he is being held down.
|
|
BHB
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,778
|
Post by BHB on Mar 6, 2007 18:27:14 GMT -5
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. Not every match has to have the fate of the company in the balance you know. As a matter of fact, I believe that win-loss records mean almost nothing in the wrestling world. That kind of stuff holds no long term bearing on the fate of many wrestlers. Take JBL for example. Months before he became the wall street tycoon, he was nothing more then a jobber. He got over as a champion pretty quickly. In 2 months most people would have forgotten that he lost to Holly and Striker. Hell Randy Orton has been on a losing streak for what seems like forever, yet all it takes is a killer promo or feud to make him a credible contender or even champion. Is CM Punk being held down? Maybe in terms of what he can do in the ring, but that's only because of the style of matches the WWE offers. He has been called the future of (at least) ECW many times, even by IWC "favorite" HHH during a major PPV. Just because his win-loss record isn't more impressive then Goldberg's or he doesn't own every title belt in the company doesn't mean he is being held down. I understand the shouldn't build up a huge streak but why book him to be beaten by Holly or Striker? Theres no logic to it. Nothing came of it. None of the guys got anything from it. One of the most over new talents being beaten by two losers. Why?
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Mar 6, 2007 18:30:05 GMT -5
not really, Brock is a way better performer, he felt like a big Time player. Plus his moves weren't delivered so slow Striker beat him by cheating Holly is over, he gets some of the loudest reactions on ECW, and he's the only veteran that can work with the younger guys and make them look better. He made Punk look better than in any other match Punk has been in WWE. Hardcore Holly beat him, what's wrong with that? You'd have a problem if Finlay beat him? I have problems with Finlay going over MVP and Benoit, because his style did not mesh well at all with MITB
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Classico on Mar 6, 2007 18:30:28 GMT -5
Really I don't worry about because people like Nitro, Carlito and Punk will be the new stars and Cena as well but people like Lashley and Batista I feel have little staying power. So we will seem them main eventing in the future, so don't worry about Punk, he will probaly be champion soon and Vince likes him and gets huge pops only second to Cena and Batista.
|
|
|
Post by Galluchadore on Mar 6, 2007 18:31:34 GMT -5
maybe foley will come back and start a really intense feud with Punk. It would do wonders for Punks career the same way it did for HHH, Rocks, and Ortons ( i know his career has stalled but during the foley feud he was great)
|
|
|
Post by BD Punk AKA SUSPENDED! on Mar 6, 2007 18:41:12 GMT -5
Held down? His ring work is, but then again so is everyone's. Punk in general isn't being held down though
Mis-used? I'd tend to agree with that, especially in January right after Heyman left when he wasn't on TV, and when he was Holly and Striker beat him. The past few weeks I think he's being booked pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by tombstoned on Mar 6, 2007 18:48:20 GMT -5
I'm with Foley on this one. Punk hasn't been turned into a jobber (yet), but WWE didn't capitalize on what the crowd wants. It sort of reminds me of how Christian was treated near the end of his WWE run. The WWE crowds were loving his gimmick and wanted to see him vs John Cena. Of course we know how that ended.
I'm pretty sure there is money to be made making the crowd happy.
WWE are looking for the next big superstar. Why not see if who the crowd is already cheering for is that superstar?
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Mar 6, 2007 18:52:09 GMT -5
not really, Brock is a way better performer, he felt like a big Time player. Agreed, but then again Brock Lesnar imo was probably closest to being a perfect wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by CuJ0 Will Keep Dancing on Mar 6, 2007 19:12:52 GMT -5
Well as long as someone always has the footage of Punk at Survivor Series getting his name chanted over DX and Team Xtreme, I will be happy.
|
|
|
Post by cernnburn on Mar 6, 2007 20:29:08 GMT -5
I really don't think the WWE had Holly beat Punk because they think Holly is better than Punk. Holly is ECW's biggest heel (unfortunately, but the fact remains) and thus needs to be portrayed as a legitimate threat to the champ Bobby Lashley. If he can't even beat an up and coming (in the WWE) wrestler why should we believe he could beat the champ?
As for Stryker, a cheating victory doesn't really mean shit, though a) why didn't Punk get the win back clean, woulda made more sense, and b) why waste the victory on Matt f***ing Stryker? He is not going anywhere as a wrestler (should make him into a manager like JR said).
|
|
|
Post by voiceboxisback on Mar 6, 2007 20:38:04 GMT -5
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. you realize every ROH fan on the planet would cream their pants if that happened? I can't see that happening, but it'd be cool to see nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Mar 6, 2007 21:36:49 GMT -5
Punks not being held down.
I don't care what anyone says, be it someone on this board or Mick Foley himself. The WWE may screw up a lot of stuff, but they've handled CM Punk PERFECTLY. Yeah, I said it. Every moment of CM Punks WWE tenure seems to have been booked very carefully.
They belt him up before his debut, well in advance so fans could get to know him. His debut was in the ECW arena, and the fans went crazy for him. He had an undefeated streak for a while and was allowed to cut promos every now and then, show off some cool moves, being built up slowly while still having his big moments (debut, Survivor Series, lasting over half an hour in the Rumble.)
I hate when people complain about his loss to Holly. Holly was booked as being at the same level as Punk, which kay-fabe wise makes sense. And didn't Punk beat him 2 weeks later? he got his heat back. Its not like Holly totally buried him.
|
|
|
Post by John Oates' Moustache on Mar 6, 2007 22:04:24 GMT -5
I think people get way too pissed over the Holly win over Punk for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be Punk fans who are mad about that, it should just be wrestling fans. Holly is boring and not over at all. Hell, he could have lost to Dreamer or something, at least people would care.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Mar 6, 2007 22:08:34 GMT -5
Punks not being held down. I don't care what anyone says, be it someone on this board or Mick Foley himself. The WWE may screw up a lot of stuff, but they've handled CM Punk PERFECTLY. Yeah, I said it. Every moment of CM Punks WWE tenure seems to have been booked very carefully. They belt him up before his debut, well in advance so fans could get to know him. His debut was in the ECW arena, and the fans went crazy for him. He had an undefeated streak for a while and was allowed to cut promos every now and then, show off some cool moves, being built up slowly while still having his big moments (debut, Survivor Series, lasting over half an hour in the Rumble.) I hate when people complain about his loss to Holly. Holly was booked as being at the same level as Punk, which kay-fabe wise makes sense. And didn't Punk beat him 2 weeks later? he got his heat back. Its not like Holly totally buried him. I do agree, but Punk never beat Holly though. He did however make him tap out after a match two weeks prior to his first loss so it's not as if they made him completely unequal to Holly.
|
|
|
Post by mrchimpus on Mar 6, 2007 22:12:42 GMT -5
There's only one thing I truly believe that Punk lacks, and that's a good feud. A good feud will give him promo time as well as a good build up to his matches. Even his mini feud with Moore was cool, only cause he slapped Moore and called him a poser.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Mar 6, 2007 22:30:43 GMT -5
Not every match has to have the fate of the company in the balance you know. As a matter of fact, I believe that win-loss records mean almost nothing in the wrestling world. That kind of stuff holds no long term bearing on the fate of many wrestlers. Take JBL for example. Months before he became the wall street tycoon, he was nothing more then a jobber. He got over as a champion pretty quickly. In 2 months most people would have forgotten that he lost to Holly and Striker. Hell Randy Orton has been on a losing streak for what seems like forever, yet all it takes is a killer promo or feud to make him a credible contender or even champion. Is CM Punk being held down? Maybe in terms of what he can do in the ring, but that's only because of the style of matches the WWE offers. He has been called the future of (at least) ECW many times, even by IWC "favorite" HHH during a major PPV. Just because his win-loss record isn't more impressive then Goldberg's or he doesn't own every title belt in the company doesn't mean he is being held down. I understand the shouldn't build up a huge streak but why book him to be beaten by Holly or Striker? Theres no logic to it. Nothing came of it. None of the guys got anything from it. One of the most over new talents being beaten by two losers. Why? I think it adds a sense of legitimacy when the "favorite" loses. After all, don't upsets happen in other sports? Sure, wrestling is a work, but isn't it more fun when we kayfabe ourselves? (thanks to whoever said that before for letting me steal it here.) And for the record ... HHH has been pinned by both Vince McMahon and Jim Ross, albeit not cleanly, but he was also regularly losing Hog Pen matches to Henry Godwinn and regular matches to Duke "The Dumpster" Droese in 1995. Like I said, Punk hasn't even been there for a year - give him time.
|
|
Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Mar 6, 2007 22:35:03 GMT -5
I think they've been very smart with the booking of Punk. They're building him up very nicely I think, they just need to give him the ECW strap or move him to SmackDown! after WrestleMania. I'm happy they didn't push him to the moon, look what they've done in the past with Brock and others pushing them down our throats. Lashley is a good example of this now.
|
|
AMW
Tommy Wiseau
Posts: 66
|
Post by AMW on Mar 7, 2007 0:00:35 GMT -5
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: smacks of self-importance. I'm sure there was more to it than the two of them stumping for Punk. I didn't see it as self-importance as much as saying that two completely different wrestlers saw something in the guy and that it helped CM Punk get hired.
|
|
|
Post by robferatu on Mar 7, 2007 0:36:14 GMT -5
I partially agree with this, I think they dropped the ball with him for a bit, but they've kinda picked it back up and are pushing him in the right direction.
I agree with anyone who says he shouldn't be a World Champion out the gate, give it time, slowly move him up the card and the pay off will last longer, because if they do it too quickly he'll burn out.
|
|