Angusdacat
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 26, 2014 21:28:21 GMT -5
Posts: 701 
|
Post by Angusdacat on Aug 22, 2014 11:38:10 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan and CM Punk were floundering in the upper mid card for years until the fans basically forced the company's hand, and the same can pretty much be said about Austin, too. Presumably you're talking about Austin Aries in TNA or something, and not Stone Cold Steve Austin, who won King of the Ring half a year after joining WWE, won the Royal Rumble half a year after that, then the following year won the Rumble again and main-evented WrestleMania. "Floundering in the upper mid card for years until the fans basically forced the company's hand"? Let's have a little look at how long various wrestlers went from their debut to their first WWE/world title: The Rock... Debut November 1996, first world title November 1998... Two years exactly John Cena... Debut June 2002, first world title April 2005... Two years & ten months Daniel Bryan... Debut February 2010, first world title December 2011... One year & ten months Stone Cold... Debut January 1996, first world title March 1998... Two years & two months Triple H... Debut April 1995, first world title August 1999... Four years & four months Batista... Debut May 2002, first world title April 2005... Two years & eleven months CM Punk... Debut June 2006, first world title June 2008... Two years exactly Brock Lesnar... Debut March 2002, first world title August 2002... Five months Mick Foley... Debut April 1996, first world title December 1998... Two years & eight months You might notice that CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are on the lower end of that list, with only Brock Lesnar having a faster title win from his debut than Bryan. Sheamus would also be around the same timeframe as Brock. But the majority of wrestlers -- including Triple H and John Cena -- went significantly longer "floundering in the upper mid card" waiting for their first major title than either Punk or Bryan did.The difference between guys like Austin, Rock, and Triple H's first title wins in comparison to Bryan and Punk's is that when those guys won the title, they became THE GUY. Punk and Bryan's first title wins were completely overshadowed and in no way made them top stars. They were still floundering. Bryan didn't become a GUY until Summerslam 2013, a little over 3 years after debuting. Although Punk's second title reign (in 2009) was good, he still didn't become THE GUY until MITB 2011, 5 years after debuting. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Aug 22, 2014 12:37:11 GMT -5
The difference between guys like Austin, Rock, and Triple H's first title wins in comparison to Bryan and Punk's is that when those guys won the title, they became THE GUY. Punk and Bryan's first title wins were completely overshadowed and in no way made them top stars. They were still floundering. Bryan didn't become a GUY until Summerslam 2013, a little over 3 years after debuting. Although Punk's second title reign (in 2009) was good, he still didn't become THE GUY until MITB 2011, 5 years after debuting. Neither CM Punk nor Daniel Bryan were ever THE GUY -- John Cena is THE GUY. Triple H was never THE GUY (at least until the WrestleMania X8 win, and even then it's a bit of a stretch) -- The Rock was just taking over from Stone Cold as THE GUY during Hunter's first few reigns. When The Rock won his first world title, he wasn't THE GUY -- Stone Cold was. The whole point of THE GUY (rather than THE GUYS) is there is only one THE GUY at a time. So are you saying that there are literally only two categories in wrestling, "THE GUY" and "doing nothing with him"? A world title win doesn't count unless you take over from John Cena as the number one face of the company? If that's the way some people view wrestling, it's no wonder they get upset all the time and think everyone is being buried. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Aug 22, 2014 12:48:16 GMT -5
 these stupid reports. Ambrose WILL be the guy at some point in his career. He WILL be carrying the WWE World Heavyweight Title at some point and he will be a mother ing main eventer because he's just that damn good. You're in some weird ass denial I've never even heard of And you got some weird stick up the butt thing I've never even heard of. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Aug 22, 2014 12:51:19 GMT -5
You're in some weird ass denial I've never even heard of And you got some weird stick up the but thing I've never even heard of.  |
|
Angusdacat
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 26, 2014 21:28:21 GMT -5
Posts: 701
|
Post by Angusdacat on Aug 22, 2014 12:54:53 GMT -5
The difference between guys like Austin, Rock, and Triple H's first title wins in comparison to Bryan and Punk's is that when those guys won the title, they became THE GUY. Punk and Bryan's first title wins were completely overshadowed and in no way made them top stars. They were still floundering. Bryan didn't become a GUY until Summerslam 2013, a little over 3 years after debuting. Although Punk's second title reign (in 2009) was good, he still didn't become THE GUY until MITB 2011, 5 years after debuting. Neither CM Punk nor Daniel Bryan were ever THE GUY -- John Cena is THE GUY. Triple H was never THE GUY (at least until the WrestleMania X8 win, and even then it's a bit of a stretch) -- The Rock was just taking over from Stone Cold as THE GUY during Hunter's first few reigns. When The Rock won his first world title, he wasn't THE GUY -- Stone Cold was. The whole point of THE GUY (rather than THE GUYS) is there is only one THE GUY at a time. So are you saying that there are literally only two categories in wrestling, "THE GUY" and "doing nothing with him"? A world title win doesn't count unless you take over from John Cena as the number one face of the company? If that's the way some people view wrestling, it's no wonder they get upset all the time and think everyone is being buried. My whole point was that Rock, Austin, and Triple H became main eventers after winning their first title. Punk and Bryan did NOT. Punk and Bryan didn't become main eventers until their respective wins in 2011 and 2013. Maybe they weren't THE GUY, but they sure as hell became one of THE GUYS, which they were far from during their first title wins. Bryan and Punk spent more time scratching in the WWE than Austin, Rock, Triple H, which you were originally disagreeing with. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Aug 22, 2014 13:01:06 GMT -5
And you got some weird stick up the but thing I've never even heard of.
Psst.... I spelled butt wrong. I mean come on! How hard is it to add an extra "t"?  |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Aug 22, 2014 13:21:46 GMT -5
My whole point was that Rock, Austin, and Triple H became main eventers after winning their first title. Punk and Bryan did NOT. Punk and Bryan didn't become main eventers until their respective wins in 2011 and 2013. Maybe they weren't THE GUY, but they sure as hell became one of THE GUYS, which they were far from during their first title wins. Bryan and Punk spent more time scratching in the WWE than Austin, Rock, Triple H, which you were originally disagreeing with. So you're changing your mind from THE GUY now to THE GUYS. Daniel Bryan's time from his debut to SummerSlam 2013 was still significantly less than Triple H's time from his debut to (the Raw after) SummerSlam 1999, by the way, so no, HHH didn't spend "less time scratching". CM Punk main evented SummerSlam 2009 in a one on one match. That's three years after his debut. Do you know when Triple H first closed a PPV in a one on one match? No Mercy 1999 (or a couple of weeks before that, Rebellion 1999, if we count UK PPVs). That's about four and a half years after his debut. That's a little more "scratching" on HHH's part. In 2009, CM Punk was very, very much one of THE GUYS on Smackdown. As was Daniel Bryan in 2011/2012. And that was -- for both of them -- much less time than Triple H took to become one of THE GUYS, and for Bryan, less time than Austin and Rock. So even if we pretend that world titles don't count, it's still very hard to perpetuate the "Punk and Bryan fought the system longer to get to the top" nonsense... Unless we also say that nothing on Smackdown mattered in the brand split era. And if we say that being one of THE GUYS on Smackdown didn't count, then Undertaker was getting buried by WWE for the last decade. But I guess that is his gimmick.  |
|
Sky'sTheLimit
Superstar
Divas Defender, NXT Fanatic (formerly BlackWidow)
Joined on: May 12, 2009 11:17:50 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by Sky'sTheLimit on Aug 22, 2014 13:21:39 GMT -5
How stupid. Lets see how this plays out.
|
|
Angusdacat
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 26, 2014 21:28:21 GMT -5
Posts: 701
|
Post by Angusdacat on Aug 22, 2014 15:24:38 GMT -5
My whole point was that Rock, Austin, and Triple H became main eventers after winning their first title. Punk and Bryan did NOT. Punk and Bryan didn't become main eventers until their respective wins in 2011 and 2013. Maybe they weren't THE GUY, but they sure as hell became one of THE GUYS, which they were far from during their first title wins. Bryan and Punk spent more time scratching in the WWE than Austin, Rock, Triple H, which you were originally disagreeing with. So you're changing your mind from THE GUY now to THE GUYS. Daniel Bryan's time from his debut to SummerSlam 2013 was still significantly less than Triple H's time from his debut to (the Raw after) SummerSlam 1999, by the way, so no, HHH didn't spend "less time scratching". CM Punk main evented SummerSlam 2009 in a one on one match. That's three years after his debut. Do you know when Triple H first closed a PPV in a one on one match? No Mercy 1999 (or a couple of weeks before that, Rebellion 1999, if we count UK PPVs). That's about four and a half years after his debut. That's a little more "scratching" on HHH's part. In 2009, CM Punk was very, very much one of THE GUYS on Smackdown. As was Daniel Bryan in 2011/2012. And that was -- for both of them -- much less time than Triple H took to become one of THE GUYS, and for Bryan, less time than Austin and Rock. So even if we pretend that world titles don't count, it's still very hard to perpetuate the "Punk and Bryan fought the system longer to get to the top" nonsense... Unless we also say that nothing on Smackdown mattered in the brand split era. And if we say that being one of THE GUYS on Smackdown didn't count, then Undertaker was getting buried by WWE for the last decade. But I guess that is his gimmick. I wasn't changing my mind, I just chose a bad phrase for main eventer in my first post. I should had been more specific with what I was trying to say. I never said being one of the top guys on Smackdown didn't count, Obviously guys like Undertaker and Edge were very much top guys when they were champions on Smackdown. I was not saying the World Title doesn't ever count either but it often gets booked to look a lot lower than the WWE championship and I can't think of too many examples of someone becoming big from winning it post 2006 unless they were ALREADY established before getting it, such as Taker, Edge, Cena, Orton in 09, etc. Punk in 2009 is a very unique example because he was very briefly treated as a top champion but then was continued to be booked weak for the next two years. Sure, Bryan main evented Summerslam 2010, but the focus was not on him and in no way did that make him a main eventer. When it comes down to it, guys like Austin Rock and Triple H still had to fight for their spot but they were able to secure it sooner and more efficiently. Maybe Bryan and Punk would have made it sooner if there was more of a need for new top stars, like in 1998. But there wasn't. WWE was more than happy in keeping Undertaker, Cena, Triple H, and Orton on top for as long as they could. I enjoy this debate and believe we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. |
|
johnnyaustin21
Main Eventer
Joined on: Nov 21, 2011 14:16:20 GMT -5
Posts: 1,609
|
Post by johnnyaustin21 on Aug 23, 2014 21:57:01 GMT -5
This truly is a non story.Its obvious to anyone that has eyes and can hear that Ambrose is being groomed as a future main eventer along with his fellow Shield members in Reigns and Rollins.Hell Ambrose just main event RAW and is going to be staring in a WWE Film.Dont believe these BS reports.
All three Shield members will be main eventers and WWE World Champions in their career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Aug 23, 2014 22:23:36 GMT -5
Punk and Bryan's first "world" title reigns were both the B title.
So obviously they weren't "THE GUY" for those. Absolutely zero superstars holding the WHC were viewed as the #1.
Cena is the only superstar who is the legit #1. Because there can be only one #1.
Hogan - Austin - Cena
that's about it.
Between Hogan & Austin you get Bret/Shawn/Diesel with a sprinkle of Undertaker
Between Austin & Cena you get Rock/Brock with a sprinkle of HHH & Batista
Since Cena you get a little Edge, a little Orton & a little Punk.
But even Punk is borderline because most of his record breaking title reign involved him getting matches somewhere in the middle of the PPVs while Cena got main events.
Ambrose is never going to be a Cena or Hogan or Austin
but he could be an Orton or Sheamus or Bryan...and that's fine with me.
|
|
