Has anyone been injured longer than Even Bourne?

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 CM Dazz said:

Dec 1, 2013 8:17:17 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Seconded. Just an awful title reign. In my humble opinion, it was the low point in WWE history. Guys who aren't over and who don't draw being given world title reigns in access of a year is the reason why I take no pity on WWE when I view their faltering ratings.

*Excess

*WWF Axxess

[Deleted]

Will Even Bourne be ambushed by The Shiebd when he returns?

[Todd Pettengill]

Dec 1, 2013 1:28:21 GMT -5 Chuck Conry said:

I suspect WWE is waiting for him to be 100% so they can can him without looking bad.

This is what I think, and have thought for a while. WWE has been trying for a few years to clean up their image, and some lame media source would have a field day if they released Bourne prior to him recovering.

[BigWill]

Dec 1, 2013 8:17:17 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Nov 30, 2013 21:13:22 GMT -5 heyeveryoneimtrombon said:

my brain, while on and off witnessing phil brooks's 434 days of worthless nothingness called a 'reign.'

Seconded. Just an awful title reign. In my humble opinion, it was the low point in WWE history. Guys who aren't over and who don't draw being given world title reigns in access of a year is the reason why I take no pity on WWE when I view their faltering ratings.

The man that couldn't get the crowd to stop cheering him while he mocked Jerry Lawler's heart attack and poured Paul Bearer's ashes over the Undertaker wasn't over?

I'd love to hear your definition of what being over means.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Nov 30, 2013 21:13:22 GMT -5 heyeveryoneimtrombon said:

my brain, while on and off witnessing phil brooks's 434 days of worthless nothingness called a 'reign.'

Whoaaaa, hold up. We're using real names, people. THIS SHIT JUST GOT LEGIT

[Ape Boy]

Dec 1, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Dec 1, 2013 8:17:17 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Seconded. Just an awful title reign. In my humble opinion, it was the low point in WWE history. Guys who aren't over and who don't draw being given world title reigns in access of a year is the reason why I take no pity on WWE when I view their faltering ratings.

The man that couldn't get the crowd to stop cheering him while he mocked Jerry Lawler's heart attack and poured Paul Bearer's ashes over the Undertaker wasn't over?

I'd love to hear your definition of what being over means.

I don't recall either of those things happening. Could it be that you (and others) imagined them?

What I do recall are atrocious ratings and sub-par buyrates, both of which can be easily verified.

Average RAW Rating
1999: 5.90
2000: 5.88
2001: 4.64
2002: 4.01
2003: 3.76
2004: 3.67
2005: 3.81
2006: 3.90
2007: 3.61
2008: 3.27
2009: 3.57
2010: 3.28
2011: 3.21
2012: 3.00
2013: 3.02

The great thing is, Punk's reign started in very late 2011 (November 20th), and ended in very early 2013 (January 27th), which allows us to single out all of 2012. What did 2012 give us? Oh, that's right. The worst ratings in modern(post-WCW/ECW) history.

Punk isn't a draw, and he's not over, at least not to a main-event level. I'm not sure why that fact upsets so many people. Punk not being over on a wide-scale, main-event level doesn't mean you fine people can't still enjoy him on a personal level. If you do, then more power to you.

Dec 1, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 CM Dazz said:

Dec 1, 2013 8:17:17 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Seconded. Just an awful title reign. In my humble opinion, it was the low point in WWE history. Guys who aren't over and who don't draw being given world title reigns in access of a year is the reason why I take no pity on WWE when I view their faltering ratings.

*Excess

Thanks. I was tired when I wrote that, which is the only time I commit any homonym slip-ups.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Dec 2, 2013 6:56:11 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

Nov 30, 2013 21:13:22 GMT -5 heyeveryoneimtrombon said:

my brain, while on and off witnessing phil brooks's 434 days of worthless nothingness called a 'reign.'

Whoaaaa, hold up. We're using real names, people. THIS SHIT JUST GOT LEGIT

Aye, using an entertainer's real name robs them of their power and means posts about their terribleness on the internet must be true because the commenter has insider knowledge, thank god there are people willing to unmask frauds like Mr. Brooks for lying and using a stage name to entertain people. In other news, Hulk Hogan is Terry Bollea. John Stewart is John Leibowitz. Nic Cage? More like Nicolas Kim Coppola! Lady Gaga? Stefani Germanotta.

[Dave the Dave]

Dec 2, 2013 7:15:38 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Dec 1, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -5 BigWill said:

The man that couldn't get the crowd to stop cheering him while he mocked Jerry Lawler's heart attack and poured Paul Bearer's ashes over the Undertaker wasn't over?

I'd love to hear your definition of what being over means.

I don't recall either of those things happening. Could it be that you (and others) imagined them?

What I do recall are atrocious ratings and sub-par buyrates, both of which can be easily verified.

Average RAW Rating
1999: 5.90
2000: 5.88
2001: 4.64
2002: 4.01
2003: 3.76
2004: 3.67
2005: 3.81
2006: 3.90
2007: 3.61
2008: 3.27
2009: 3.57
2010: 3.28
2011: 3.21
2012: 3.00
2013: 3.02

The great thing is, Punk's reign started in very late 2011 (November 20th), and ended in very early 2013 (January 27th), which allows us to single out all of 2012. What did 2012 give us? Oh, that's right. The worst ratings in modern(post-WCW/ECW) history.

Punk isn't a draw, and he's not over, at least not to a main-event level. I'm not sure why that fact upsets so many people. Punk not being over on a wide-scale, main-event level doesn't mean you fine people can't still enjoy him on a personal level. If you do, then more power to you.

Dec 1, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 CM Dazz said:

*Excess

Thanks. I was tired when I wrote that, which is the only time I commit any homonym slip-ups.

Ratings aside, I'd check your hearing. He was getting cheers despite his dastardly ways

[trollrogue]

Dec 2, 2013 7:15:38 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Dec 1, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -5 BigWill said:

The man that couldn't get the crowd to stop cheering him while he mocked Jerry Lawler's heart attack and poured Paul Bearer's ashes over the Undertaker wasn't over?

I'd love to hear your definition of what being over means.

I don't recall either of those things happening. Could it be that you (and others) imagined them?

What I do recall are atrocious ratings and sub-par buyrates, both of which can be easily verified.

Average RAW Rating
1999: 5.90
2000: 5.88
2001: 4.64
2002: 4.01
2003: 3.76
2004: 3.67
2005: 3.81
2006: 3.90
2007: 3.61
2008: 3.27
2009: 3.57
2010: 3.28
2011: 3.21
2012: 3.00
2013: 3.02

The great thing is, Punk's reign started in very late 2011 (November 20th), and ended in very early 2013 (January 27th), which allows us to single out all of 2012. What did 2012 give us? Oh, that's right. The worst ratings in modern(post-WCW/ECW) history.

Punk isn't a draw, and he's not over, at least not to a main-event level. I'm not sure why that fact upsets so many people. Punk not being over on a wide-scale, main-event level doesn't mean you fine people can't still enjoy him on a personal level. If you do, then more power to you.

Dec 1, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 CM Dazz said:

*Excess

Thanks. I was tired when I wrote that, which is the only time I commit any homonym slip-ups.

You're working too hard to justify your fringe opinion with irrelevant data, sir. If you actually think the current WWE Champion is 100% in charge of the Nielsen Ratings you obviously don't know what an 'undercard' is, what 'NXT' stands for, why HHH is so pumped about his new Power Plant in Florida, and really anything else common sense that is involved in professional wrestling despite clearly trying to perpetrate being a smark.

What you DID actually accomplish is to try and make phil brooks (lowercased ppl!) the scapegoat for what is CLEARLY a statistical trend downwards in the ratings on a yearly basis YEARS BEFORE CM PUNK'S 434 DAY REIGN. Perhaps I was wrong before-- perhaps you aren't trying hard enough good sir!

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Dec 2, 2013 7:15:38 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Dec 1, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -5 BigWill said:

The man that couldn't get the crowd to stop cheering him while he mocked Jerry Lawler's heart attack and poured Paul Bearer's ashes over the Undertaker wasn't over?

I'd love to hear your definition of what being over means.

I don't recall either of those things happening. Could it be that you (and others) imagined them?

What I do recall are atrocious ratings and sub-par buyrates, both of which can be easily verified.

Average RAW Rating
1999: 5.90
2000: 5.88
2001: 4.64
2002: 4.01
2003: 3.76
2004: 3.67
2005: 3.81
2006: 3.90
2007: 3.61
2008: 3.27
2009: 3.57
2010: 3.28
2011: 3.21
2012: 3.00
2013: 3.02

The great thing is, Punk's reign started in very late 2011 (November 20th), and ended in very early 2013 (January 27th), which allows us to single out all of 2012. What did 2012 give us? Oh, that's right. The worst ratings in modern(post-WCW/ECW) history.

Punk isn't a draw, and he's not over, at least not to a main-event level. I'm not sure why that fact upsets so many people. Punk not being over on a wide-scale, main-event level doesn't mean you fine people can't still enjoy him on a personal level. If you do, then more power to you.

You make it sound like WWE ratings had been steady year on year and suddenly collapsed under Punk and that he was booked as the only star the WWE had in that year, dominating all comers the way HHH did in the early 2000s. Cena was around, so was Rock, so was Heyman, Lesnar, Orton, Mysterio, Triple H, Sheamus, Del Rio and the WWE were working on building other stars... Based on those numbers the worst you can say is, like Bret Hart, is he failed to stop the rot, unlike Bret though, he still had a whole host of 'draws' around him engaged in high profile storylines who weren't drawing huge ratings either.

WWE have made it so the company is the draw but thanks to poor booking decisions, it's becoming less of one year on year.

[Deleted]

And the topic has been derailed. Don't fall for the flamebait

[Ape Boy]

Dec 2, 2013 8:25:07 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

And the topic has been derailed. Don't fall for the flamebait

Too late, I already have. I know, I know. I should've taken the highroad and not responded to someone who proudly declares him/herself a troll in their username, but it was just too tempting. I wont let it happen again.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

I'm more interested in the fate of Odd Borune.

[BigWill]

There's no point in arguing with the guy.

Let him continue on having his delusions

[Deleted]

I heard that CM Punk is the reason that MASH was cancelled.

[Dave the Dave]

Dec 2, 2013 9:35:14 GMT -5 @akeem said:

I heard that CM Punk is the reason that MASH was cancelled.

I'm okay with that but killing Mayberry RFD off wasn't cool!

[SEAN CARLESS]

Cumulative Ratings don't prove that Punk (or any one guy) was the reason for WWE's ratings being down. The rating average of 3.00 is exactly THAT, an average, of every quarter hour over a 3 hour and 15 minute broadcast, then timed by 52 and medianed out from there. If Punk segments are getting the second best rating of the night (Cena was way ahead), how can he be blamed solely? (especially since the show wasn't even built primarily around him for 90% of his reign). That'd be like taking a B level student in a class where one other kid got an A, and everyone else got an F, and claiming he was the one dragging the class average down.

Despite being Champion, he was not the featured act on RAW in 2012, (that was Cena, who still did great numbers), did not close out every Raw, or main event every pay-per-view. You cannot possibly give sole blame to a guy being the Iceberg to WWE's Titanic when he was not positioned until later in the year as the "main event." Main events, mind you, thanks mostly to the Rock, that did bigger business than the previous year's installments of the same PPVs. (Royal Rumble (1/27): 579,000 worldwide (364,000 domestic)
Elimination Chamber (2/17): 241,000 worldwide (181,000 domestic)).

That said, WWE's ratings woes have less to do with any one act, and more to do with the 3 hour length. The ratings dip directly coincides with that addition of that third hour. People are just not dedicating themselves to an entire show anymore. WWE is just not must-see TV anymore top to bottom these days for most people.

Now, if the argument was, should Punk be on top over Cena, the answer is obviously no. But he was not a disaster that single-handedly tanked the company's finances. That's just revisionist history.

[Bootista]

Dec 1, 2013 21:17:42 GMT -5 @bootytime said:

Will Even Bourne be ambushed by The Shiebd when he returns?

Nah He'll face Rice Flair and The Rick in a triple threat with FM Punk on Commentary and Bert Hart as the special guest referee

[sunnytaker]

Dec 1, 2013 1:01:41 GMT -5 Straight Edge Scrotum said:

Nov 30, 2013 22:58:15 GMT -5 Hawk Hart said:

Came to post this. You're a real bastard.

I also came to post Bob Orton's legendary cast.

i was actually disappointed when Bob came back during randy's feud with Piper that he didn;t still have the cast on.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Dec 2, 2013 8:19:33 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

A wrestling show rises and falls on the back of the man pushed as the focal point of the show. For most of 2012, that man was C.M. Punk. Trying to deflect Punk's responsibility for the atrocious yearly ratings average, and place it on the undercard, is, in a word, pathetic.

Focal point of the show in November 2011: Cena/Rock vs. Awesome Truth, HHH's losing the confidence of the roster.
Survivor Series main event: Cena/Rock vs. Awesome Truth.

Focal point of the show in December 2011: Nash vs. HHH.
TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs main event: Punk vs. Miz vs. ADR.

Focal point of the show in January 2012: Cena/Ryder/Eve/Kane.
Royal Rumble main event: Rumble match.

Focal point of the show in February 2012: Cena vs. Kane.
Elimination Chamber main event: Cena vs. Kane.

Focal points of the show in March 2012: Cena v. Rock, Undertaker vs. HHH.
WrestleMania main event: Cena vs. Rock.

Focal point of the show in April 2012: Cena vs. Lesnar.
Extreme Rules main event: Cena vs. Lesnar.

Focal point of the show in May 2012: Cena vs. Laurinaitis.
Over the Limit main event: Cena vs. Laurinaitis.

Focal point of the show in June 2012: Cena vs. Big Show/Laurinaitis.
No Way Out main event: Cena vs. Big Show.

Focal point of the show in July 2012: Punk/Bryan/AJ.
Money in the Bank main event: Cena vs. Kane vs. Jericho vs. Miz vs. Big Show.

Focal point of the show in August 2012: HHH vs. Lesnar.
SummerSlam main event: HHH vs. Lesnar.

Focal point of the show in September 2012: Punk vs. Cena.
Night of Champions main event: Punk vs. Cena.

Focal point of the show in October 2012: Punk vs. Ryback.
Hell in a Cell main event: Punk vs. Ryback.

Focal point of the show in November 2012: Punk/Ryback/Cena.
Survivor Series main event: Punk vs. Ryback vs. Cena.

Focal point of the show in December 2012: AJ/Cena/Vickie.
TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs main event: Cena vs. Ziggler.

Focal point of the show in January 2013: Rock vs. Punk.
Royal Rumble main event: Rock vs. Punk.

A huge complaint on the Internet during Punk's reign was he was never the focal point of the show unless Cena was involved or unavailable, and having just trawled through 15 months worth of Raw recaps I can confidently say that by your logic shouldn't Cena be the one to blame for the falling ratings?

Dec 2, 2013 8:19:33 GMT -5 Ape Boy said:

Dec 2, 2013 7:44:51 GMT -5 trollrogue said:

What you DID actually accomplish is to try and make phil brooks (lowercased ppl!) the scapegoat for what is CLEARLY a statistical trend downwards in the ratings on a yearly basis YEARS BEFORE CM PUNK'S 434 DAY REIGN. Perhaps I was wrong before-- perhaps you aren't trying hard enough good sir!

A downward trend which has managed to magically reverse itself this year. How very convenient.

Which has managed to reverse itself during a period when Punk has been much more relevant to the top of the card (feuds with Rock, Brock, and Taker trump Jericho, heel Bryan, and Laurinaitis' goons) than at any point during his reign prior to Rock (ratings between 2.9 and 3.7). Once he dropped down into the midcard facing Ryback, Axel and the Wyatts the ratings dipped below 3 and have yet to rise above 2.98.

It's almost as if putting Punk into programs with established big names contributes to better ratings more than feuds against upper midcarders! Who'd have thought it?