Does Punk draw? (No, not pictures)

[willywonka666]

Checking out the Observer Awards he comes it at #9 and it was noted that he's not a draw, so kayfabe aside, how is he that great? Is he a Roddy Piper "I can't wait to see him get his ass kicked" draw, or a "Diesel as world champ" draw?

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

I would imagine that his merchandise sales played a factor in him being ranked.

[The Possum]

Money in the Bank 2011's buyrate should answer this question.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2013 17:03:49 GMT -5 The Possum said:

Money in the Bank 2011's buyrate should answer this question.

That's a tough one because I would imagine that a lot of buys were from Cena fans and people curious enough to see if the E would actually have Cena drop it to Punk "on his way out".

Not to diminish Punk's contributions to the angle/match/show but Cena played a major role in that as well just by being the WWE's top guy.

[kidglov3s]

I guess the biggest negative reflection upon him are the flat/nearly historic low Raw ratings.

[Oakster]

Jan 26, 2013 16:50:14 GMT -5 willywonka666 said:

Does Punk draw? (No, not pictures)

He drew a gun here:

[muzzle]

But who is a draw? Part timers and Cena.

[Corporate H]

I think he has a stronghold on the IWC, other than that though, he doesn't transcend audiences and bring in new viewers it seems. He's like the Bret Hart of this generation.

[Widow's Peak]

Jan 26, 2013 17:11:39 GMT -5 muzzle said:

But who is a draw? Part timers and Cena.

Pretty much.

OTOH, there is a long list of guys we consider "all time greats" who didn't exactly "draw" in their prime.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2013 17:15:37 GMT -5 Widow's Peak said:

Jan 26, 2013 17:11:39 GMT -5 muzzle said:

But who is a draw? Part timers and Cena.

Pretty much.

OTOH, there is a long list of guys we consider "all time greats" who didn't exactly "draw" in their prime.

See: Michaels, Shawn.

Maybe that's their intention though. Raise a loyal contingent who adore Punk and his matches, so that when he inevitably makes a comeback later on in his career, he connects with two separate audiences and becomes bigger than he ever was before.

[Corporate H]

Jan 26, 2013 17:18:56 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

Jan 26, 2013 17:15:37 GMT -5 Widow's Peak said:

Pretty much.

OTOH, there is a long list of guys we consider "all time greats" who didn't exactly "draw" in their prime.

See: Michaels, Shawn.

Maybe that's their intention though. Raise a loyal contingent who adore Punk and his matches, so that when he inevitably makes a comeback later on in his career, he connects with two separate audiences and becomes bigger than he ever was before.

Yeah, Punk is holding it down, but isn't necessarily setting the world on fire. They need to build up talent, something he himself has said on more than one occasion. Another reason why somebody who's not Cena needs to beat either CM Punk or Rock for the belt.

[molson5]

Jan 26, 2013 17:03:49 GMT -5 The Possum said:

Money in the Bank 2011's buyrate should answer this question.

That show did 195,000, which was 30,000 more than the year before, but still a pretty low number considering how much buzz there was around that show. It was the most talked about non-Mania PPV I can remember. So I'd say, Punk is very good at drawing fans to illegal ppv streams of events. It's harder to say how good he is at drawing fans to pay $55 for a PPV.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

This idea of "draw" is so ludicrous, anyway. The SHOW should be drawing people. Why do they hold on to this weird thinking that only made sense in the territory days?

[kidglov3s]

Jan 26, 2013 17:22:31 GMT -5 carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) said:

This idea of "draw" is so ludicrous, anyway. The SHOW should be drawing people. Why do they hold on to this weird thinking that only made sense in the territory days?

I think it's because in an adorable kind of way Meltzer's never left the territory days and justifies it by combining wrestling with MMA that has more of a tie to that. He lives in this little world where Sting doesn't deserve to be in a wrestling hall of fame.

[Corporate H]

I think in terms of television rating and PPV buyrates, drawing is definitely still a factor. In a perfect world the roster as a whole would be drawing together, but this isn't the late '90s.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2013 17:28:35 GMT -5 Corporate H said:

I think in terms of television rating and PPV buyrates, drawing is definitely still a factor. In a perfect world the roster as a whole would be drawing together, but this isn't the late '90s.

Agreed. WWE has devalued most of their talents and destroyed the concept of a dynamic show where everyone matters and has their own little spiel going on. Right now, it's main event or bust, and so the concern is having "main event" talents who can carry the show. And they need more of them. Punk is not like Cena, though. He's a main event guy and he's very popular on the internet (look at his twitter fanbase) but in terms of TV viewership and live audiences he's a bit weaker than he should be.

[kidglov3s]

Jan 26, 2013 17:28:35 GMT -5 Corporate H said:

I think in terms of television rating and PPV buyrates, drawing is definitely still a factor. In a perfect world the roster as a whole would be drawing together, but this isn't the late '90s.

I think it's more like the late '90s than the mid '80s. WWE has like 10 hours of weekly television that all the wrestlers are on, it's not like when they'd reserve Hogan matches for SNME, house shows and PPV. The dynamics are the same as the late 90s but the level of talent isn't.

[chazraps]

Punk's a draw, it's just different to factor what a draw is in 2013. In the summer of 2011, the "pipe bomb" promo was the biggest moment the company's had with a new star social media-wise in years. He's the only star since Cena* to come near transcending wrestling in terms of pop culture notoriety. Punk's done more than his part getting people to talk about the product, including new faces and returning old faces. Again, not including Cena and part-timers, Punk's the most talked about wrestling entity.

*The Miz doesn't count as, prior to wrestling, he's the most beloved still-living "Real World" cast member of all time and would still be just as followed by the TMZ/media outlets as he is in wrestling.

[YiHammer]

Punk has been the only WWE champ since the move to 3 hours

It's unfair to blame him

[Corporate H]

Jan 26, 2013 17:32:42 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

Jan 26, 2013 17:28:35 GMT -5 Corporate H said:

I think in terms of television rating and PPV buyrates, drawing is definitely still a factor. In a perfect world the roster as a whole would be drawing together, but this isn't the late '90s.

I think it's more like the late '90s than the mid '80s. WWE has like 10 hours of weekly television that all the wrestlers are on, it's not like when they'd reserve Hogan matches for SNME, house shows and PPV. The dynamics are the same as the late 90s but the level of talent isn't.

Yeah, it's like the late '90s, but they're underperforming like the early '90s. During the Monday Night Wars there was easily five or six guys on Cena's level is my point, so the show was a smash hit no matter who was in the main event for the most part. Now it has to be centered around Cena because the audience hasn't connected with anyone but his character. Only full-timers that come close are Ryback and Orton, other than that CM Punk has gained steam but always seems to bottom out for this reason or that.