Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 234,394
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Dec 27, 2016 0:39:26 GMT -5
Steph absolutely roasted Chicago and stopped the chants cold So it made it even funnier when Roman came out minutes later and ignited them up again
|
|
|
Post by Brooklynpunk97 on Dec 27, 2016 0:44:03 GMT -5
What gets me is that Punk has never put the WWE on blast. Even during the reveal podcast with Colt he remained respectful throughout when it came to WWE. He hasnt said anything negative about them, hasn't publicly shit on them on twitter and if he has, hes never done it directly from what i can remember and although what Stephanie said was funny and "savage" they're still in Punks hometown. Coming from his mouth, Punk was a man that wanted to help the company, he wanted to help the talent and wanted to make everyone more money. But Vince put down every little idea he came across and for WWE to be sour, if what Punk says is true, really is petty. Chicago is Punk-city, its expected to get his chants. Yes, hes been gone for a long time. Its not a slight on the talent or anyone in particular, its the crowd wishing their hero would come back. And to be perfectly honest, a healthy dosage of Punk into this product is severely needed. Not on the Smackdown side but certainly on the Raw brand. You sure you are not a wee bit biased. Seriously tho, there are two sides to that story and then there is the truth. We know one side and have hearsay on the other. Both parties are not saints while on the same token they are not the devilish evil doers as well. Oh, no question. Haha. Being a Punk fan certainly skews my perspective, no doubt. But WWE, by some accounts, has been a place that asks for wrestlers ideas only to be shut down by the higher ups. So its hard to defend them, which makes it easier to be on the wrestlers side.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 27, 2016 1:08:19 GMT -5
Yeah...you know what, for all the shit people give Steph, some of it unwarranted and frankly much of it justified, that put-down was just glorious and frankly 'savage' as mentioned in OP. As much shit as Steph gets, one thing she's great at is getting the crowd into the segment. She did it last night, and a couple of years ago at Payback when Bryan froze during their segment while the crowd was chanting for Punk, and Steph responded with "See, they want you to quit just like he did." There's a reason why on the Raw that Bryan announced his retirement she opened the show, she can take a crowd that's chanting for somebody not in the segment and get them to focus on the segment. What gets me is that Punk has never put the WWE on blast. Even during the reveal podcast with Colt he remained respectful throughout when it came to WWE. He hasnt said anything negative about them, hasn't publicly shit on them on twitter and if he has, hes never done it directly from what i can remember and although what Stephanie said was funny and "savage" they're still in Punks hometown. Coming from his mouth, Punk was a man that wanted to help the company, he wanted to help the talent and wanted to make everyone more money. But Vince put down every little idea he came across and for WWE to be sour, if what Punk says is true, really is petty. Chicago is Punk-city, its expected to get his chants. Yes, hes been gone for a long time. Its not a slight on the talent or anyone in particular, its the crowd wishing their hero would come back. And to be perfectly honest, a healthy dosage of Punk into this product is severely needed. Not on the Smackdown side but certainly on the Raw brand. You sure you are not a wee bit biased. Seriously tho, there are two sides to that story and then there is the truth. We know one side and have hearsay on the other. Both parties are not saints while on the same token they are not the devilish evil doers as well. Yeah, there are 3 sides, Punk's side, the WWE's side, and the truth. And the truth is usually close to the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Dec 27, 2016 2:22:06 GMT -5
It was glorious.
|
|
ASYLUMHAUSEN
Fry's dog Seymour
GIFs | Shitposts | Fun
Posts: 24,278
|
Post by ASYLUMHAUSEN on Dec 27, 2016 2:24:37 GMT -5
Aahhh...The ol' Stephanie McMahon pettiness coming out. Keep trying Stephanie, I'm sure one day you'll be as good as you've deluded yourselve into believing that you are. maybe one day she WON'T burn the roast even....
|
|
Evil Homer
Hank Scorpio
I am Evil Homer, I am Evil Homer.
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by Evil Homer on Dec 27, 2016 2:28:11 GMT -5
A heel should have walked to cult of personality
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 27, 2016 2:50:05 GMT -5
Eh, they're not chanting just for 'a wrestler they enjoyed' though. It's a kind of 'take that' to the WWE. In the first year or so, I could see it. Doing it now is just sorta corny. Though the chants don't bother me one way or another, I just thought the shot was clever and funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 3:09:27 GMT -5
Had to have been written beforehand. She isn't that good.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Dec 27, 2016 3:19:22 GMT -5
I think Punk has said not to chant his name. It was a good burn and shut them up but ripping on Punk like that because the fans chanted his name does seem a little petty.
He's not starting the chants. She destroyed him not the crowd. She shut them up but it does seem a little below unnecessarily harsh.
|
|
Capt Lunatic
Unicron
Buttah in mah ass, lollipops in mah mouth
Posts: 3,241
|
Post by Capt Lunatic on Dec 27, 2016 3:30:12 GMT -5
It was a smashing insult. That one UFC fight(plus 2 year build) is all the ammo that will ever be needed to take a shot at him.
But others on here are right, Steph should have gone after each and every member of the crowd instead of the guy they were chanting for. I'm sure that would have been much better television.
|
|
|
Post by Long A, Short A on Dec 27, 2016 3:37:22 GMT -5
Wrestler burns that you guys get your life from are rarely as savage as you give them credit for. I've said this before and I'll say it many more times in the future. The library was never open.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Dec 27, 2016 3:43:04 GMT -5
I think Punk has said not to chant his name. It was a good burn and shut them up but ripping on Punk like that because the fans chanted his name does seem a little petty. Punk has stated that he would rather not have fans chant CM PUNK towards his wife, but that's all he condemned. He even more or less gave the OK to chant it at guys "who suck and wear lifts in their boots." Granted, I don't think he really cares much about it these days anyway.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 27, 2016 4:07:21 GMT -5
Eh, they're not chanting just for 'a wrestler they enjoyed' though. It's a kind of 'take that' to the WWE. In the first year or so, I could see it. Doing it now is just sorta corny. Though the chants don't bother me one way or another, I just thought the shot was clever and funny. "It's kind of a 'take that' to the WWE." How can we be sure of this, though? It's only one assumption, just as mine is an assumption in opposing direction. Personally speaking, I don't feel it's fair to label their actions on an assumption of their intentions; especially when it's a negative label we attach. That's not to say you (in the general sense) can't or shouldn't have your own opinion about them, just that it's not a very impartial course of action to tell them to "just move on already." From how it's been used...maybe at the beginning (and the nadir of the YES! Movement's worry), it might have been just for "a wrestler they enjoyed." By the end of the time, though, the chant has quickly changed from 'chant CM Punk to support Punk when you enjoyed him' to become 'chant CM PUNK! because you know you'll get thrown out if you chant 'F*** YOU, WWE! F*** YOU!"
|
|
Jessica Cadavre
Trap-Jaw
I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?
Posts: 427
|
Post by Jessica Cadavre on Dec 27, 2016 4:17:10 GMT -5
It was the first time I've laughed loud at their product in a long while.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 27, 2016 4:36:53 GMT -5
Eh, they're not chanting just for 'a wrestler they enjoyed' though. It's a kind of 'take that' to the WWE. In the first year or so, I could see it. Doing it now is just sorta corny. Though the chants don't bother me one way or another, I just thought the shot was clever and funny. "It's kind of a 'take that' to the WWE." How can we be sure of this, though? It's only one assumption, just as mine is an assumption in opposing direction. Personally speaking, I don't feel it's fair to label their actions on an assumption of their intentions; especially when it's a negative label we attach. That's not to say you (in the general sense) can't or shouldn't have your own opinion about them, just that it's not a very impartial course of action to tell them to "just move on already." well, no. No it's not. It started as part of the whole hijacking shows things during the Daniel Bryan deal. It's not an opinion nor an assumption, when that's when/how it started. I don't care if they 'move on' or any of that. But to act like that's not why crowds started doing it is disingenuous. Do ALL of the people that do/have done that meant it that way? There'd be no way to know that, I'll concede that. But that is why crowds generally started doing that. At the very least, it's like the What chant now: something to express displeasure. But no, the vast majority aren't doing it because they simply like the guy I'm note even saying it's necessarily a negative beyond thinking it's corny (I think the what chant is corny too), but that IS why they're doing it.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,016
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 27, 2016 4:41:25 GMT -5
"It's kind of a 'take that' to the WWE." How can we be sure of this, though? It's only one assumption, just as mine is an assumption in opposing direction. Personally speaking, I don't feel it's fair to label their actions on an assumption of their intentions; especially when it's a negative label we attach. That's not to say you (in the general sense) can't or shouldn't have your own opinion about them, just that it's not a very impartial course of action to tell them to "just move on already." well, no. No it's not. It started as part of the whole hijacking shows things during the Daniel Bryan deal. It's not an opinion nor an assumption, when that's when/how it started. I don't care if they 'move on' or any of that. But to act like that's not why crowds started doing it is disingenuous. Do ALL of the people that do/have done that meant it that way? There'd be no way to know that, I'll concede that. But that is why crowds generally started doing that. At the very least, it's like the What chant now: something to express displeasure. But no, the vast majority aren't doing it because they simply like the guy I'm note even saying it's necessarily a negative beyond thinking it's corny (I think the what chant is corny too), but that IS why they're doing it. Yeah. No one shouts "Freebird" at a concert out of an earnest belief the band will start playing it, or to say they love the song, unless it's some cover band. It's trolling.
|
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,279
|
Post by Woo on Dec 27, 2016 4:50:01 GMT -5
Of course Steph had that line in her back pocket already before the night began, but it's still a fantastic line!
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 27, 2016 5:49:47 GMT -5
The line didn't include anything about how she invented feminism last year so I'm assuming someone else wrote it for her.
Probably written by the same guy who made a 5 minute video of Punk's ass.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,273
Member is Online
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 27, 2016 5:54:38 GMT -5
I'm not a Stephanie fan in the slightest, but that was restaurant-quality savagery.
|
|
|
Post by chronocross on Dec 27, 2016 6:11:08 GMT -5
I'm no fan of hers but that's hilarious.
|
|