jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Nov 30, 2014 16:57:44 GMT -5
If I was in one of the three "main events" being billed, I feel that I should get paid equal to the other five guys. Maybe that's just me though. I also didn't get a "hole" or contradictory vibe from the pay talk. Yes, he said it isn't all about money. Because it's not. But, he wanted to be paid accordingly for what he felt he deserved. It's also HILARIOUS to see people spew "all the Punk fans get brainwashed by this", but they're also instantly programmed to be against the things he says. Like, why is it okay for some to take a stance against him instantly but it's bad for some to blindly agree with him? I'm not saying he was totally right or wrong because there's no way to tell either way. You think Paul Orndorff and King Kong Bundy got the same pay as Hogan at the first two Manias? Just because you are in a main event doesn't make you the draw. Cena and Rock were clearly the draws of that Mania. There are probably a few people who agree we you though, like Punk and all of Floyd Mayweathers opponents ever (wonder if Big Show got paid 20 mil as we'll for that mania match, should be equal right, it's the same match) |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Nov 30, 2014 17:02:12 GMT -5
If I was in one of the three "main events" being billed, I feel that I should get paid equal to the other five guys. Maybe that's just me though. I also didn't get a "hole" or contradictory vibe from the pay talk. Yes, he said it isn't all about money. Because it's not. But, he wanted to be paid accordingly for what he felt he deserved. It's also HILARIOUS to see people spew "all the Punk fans get brainwashed by this", but they're also instantly programmed to be against the things he says. Like, why is it okay for some to take a stance against him instantly but it's bad for some to blindly agree with him? I'm not saying he was totally right or wrong because there's no way to tell either way. You think Paul Orndorff and King Kong Bundy got the same pay as Hogan at the first two Manias? Just because you are in a main event doesn't make you the draw. Cena and Rock were clearly the draws of that Mania. There are probably a few people who agree we you though, like Punk and all of Floyd Mayweathers opponents ever (wonder if Big Show got paid 20 mil as we'll for that mania match, should be equal right, it's the same match) I get where you're coming from completely. However, CM Punk was the number two consistently active guy in the company, which Bundy or Orndorff never were. Punk deserved to be paid as much as them since he was the best thing about that WrestleMania and was in one of the higher profile matches. This also brings to light another thing he pointed out, about how guys aren't given the chance to draw. I get how established the other guys are, but Punk showed time after time that he can draw, so why shouldn't he be paid like a top draw? |
|
|
|
Post by el torro on Nov 30, 2014 17:06:33 GMT -5
You have just been told that you out performed Cena/Rock and HHH/Lesnar with Taker. And yet all of them INCLUDING the man you stole the show WITH, get payed more than you. Would you not complain? Would I complain? If I stole the show with The  ING UNDERTAKER at Wrestle Fn mania ? Hell no, I would do that for free! Alright I should have worded that differently. I understand from a fan's viewpoint, match with Taker, hell yeah. But to take things from Punk's perspective. Nagging injuries, Vince owing him 2 or even one favor(s), not getting the main event spot, forced to work EC, and then stealing the show at WM. That "favor" alone should have gotten him equal pay, the other factors just add on. |
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Nov 30, 2014 17:07:59 GMT -5
You think Paul Orndorff and King Kong Bundy got the same pay as Hogan at the first two Manias? Just because you are in a main event doesn't make you the draw. Cena and Rock were clearly the draws of that Mania. There are probably a few people who agree we you though, like Punk and all of Floyd Mayweathers opponents ever (wonder if Big Show got paid 20 mil as we'll for that mania match, should be equal right, it's the same match) I get where you're coming from completely. However, CM Punk was the number two consistently active guy in the company, which Bundy or Orndorff never were. Punk deserved to be paid as much as them since he was the best thing about that WrestleMania and was in one of the higher profile matches. This also brings to light another thing he pointed out, about how guys aren't given the chance to draw. I get how established the other guys are, but Punk showed time after time that he can draw, so why shouldn't he be paid like a top draw? I found it interesting that he didn't say how much he made off of Mania or how much more everyone else made. I believe they paid Rock 5 mil for his run as champion and they paid Taker 1 mil for each of his mania matches. No one was going to pay him anywhere near that. Taker has been loyal to the company for 25 years, he earned his bonus pay. Rock brings in a lot of business, business not even Punk could bring in. Punk, while I love him, whines about not getting equal bonuses, yet has enough money to retire at age 36. The dude wasn't getting paid peanuts. Also, if you listened to that interview, he found an old royalty check laying around ("exponentially more than 10k). For a dude so concerned about cash, he just has 100k checks laying around that he forgets to cash. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Nov 30, 2014 17:12:28 GMT -5
I get where you're coming from completely. However, CM Punk was the number two consistently active guy in the company, which Bundy or Orndorff never were. Punk deserved to be paid as much as them since he was the best thing about that WrestleMania and was in one of the higher profile matches. This also brings to light another thing he pointed out, about how guys aren't given the chance to draw. I get how established the other guys are, but Punk showed time after time that he can draw, so why shouldn't he be paid like a top draw? I found it interesting that he didn't say how much he made off of Mania or how much more everyone else made. I believe they paid Rock 5 mil for his run as champion and they paid Taker 1 mil for each of his mania matches. No one was going to pay him anywhere near that. Taker has been loyal to the company for 25 years, he earned his bonus pay. Rock brings in a lot of business, business not even Punk could bring in. Punk, while I love him, whines about not getting equal bonuses, yet has enough money to retire at age 36. The dude wasn't getting paid peanuts. Also, if you listened to that interview, he found an old royalty check laying around ("exponentially more than 10k). For a dude so concerned about cash, he just has 100k checks laying around that he forgets to cash. Again, he did have enough money to be happy. BUT, if you're doing something and you're doing it better than everyone else at the time, why shouldn't you be paid as so? I see your perspective, but I also see Punk's. Neither is delusional, but the way some people post about Punk (not you), you would think he said the dumbest things ever. |
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Nov 30, 2014 17:22:00 GMT -5
I found it interesting that he didn't say how much he made off of Mania or how much more everyone else made. I believe they paid Rock 5 mil for his run as champion and they paid Taker 1 mil for each of his mania matches. No one was going to pay him anywhere near that. Taker has been loyal to the company for 25 years, he earned his bonus pay. Rock brings in a lot of business, business not even Punk could bring in. Punk, while I love him, whines about not getting equal bonuses, yet has enough money to retire at age 36. The dude wasn't getting paid peanuts. Also, if you listened to that interview, he found an old royalty check laying around ("exponentially more than 10k). For a dude so concerned about cash, he just has 100k checks laying around that he forgets to cash. Again, he did have enough money to be happy. BUT, if you're doing something and you're doing it better than everyone else at the time, why shouldn't you be paid as so? I see your perspective, but I also see Punk's. Neither is delusional, but the way some people post about Punk (not you), you would think he said the dumbest things ever. It's about who makes the money and who draws, unfortunately whether you agree with it or not that's how the entertainment business works. There's a reason why Jim Carrey makes 25 million a movie and Daniel Day Lewis gets 3 mil. Ones an infinitely better actor, but one draws 200 million a picture. As persuasive as Punk was, he wasn't as valuable as Cena, he can't outdraw the Rock and can't outdraw Lesnar. I'll give him HHH all day. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Nov 30, 2014 17:24:06 GMT -5
Again, he did have enough money to be happy. BUT, if you're doing something and you're doing it better than everyone else at the time, why shouldn't you be paid as so? I see your perspective, but I also see Punk's. Neither is delusional, but the way some people post about Punk (not you), you would think he said the dumbest things ever. It's about who makes the money and who draws, unfortunately whether you agree with it or not that's how the entertainment business works. There's a reason why Jim Carrey makes 25 million a movie and Daniel Day Lewis gets 3 mil. Ones an infinitely better actor, but one draws 200 million a picture. As persuasive as Punk was, he wasn't as valuable as Cena, he can't outdraw the Rock and can't outdraw Lesnar. I'll give him HHH all day. I mean, the guy outsold John Cena in merch and drew well on a Pay-Per-View without him and WrestleMania makes a ton of money no matter what. I think he could draw a damn fine amount, but I get you. |
|
tripleh23
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 9, 2006 14:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 790
|
Post by tripleh23 on Nov 30, 2014 17:28:47 GMT -5
Hopefully tomorrow on Raw they will announce the new network special: The Self Destruction Of CM Punk
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Nov 30, 2014 17:41:38 GMT -5
It's about who makes the money and who draws, unfortunately whether you agree with it or not that's how the entertainment business works. There's a reason why Jim Carrey makes 25 million a movie and Daniel Day Lewis gets 3 mil. Ones an infinitely better actor, but one draws 200 million a picture. As persuasive as Punk was, he wasn't as valuable as Cena, he can't outdraw the Rock and can't outdraw Lesnar. I'll give him HHH all day. I mean, the guy outsold John Cena in merch and drew well on a Pay-Per-View without him and WrestleMania makes a ton of money no matter what. I think he could draw a damn fine amount, but I get you. I believe his exact quote was that he sold more tshirts. I'll believe that. But, There is no way he sold more merchandise than Cena. A Punk fan has on a 30 dollar tshirt. A cena fan has the 30 dollar tshirt, the 40 dollar hat, the arm bands etc. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Nov 30, 2014 17:51:09 GMT -5
I mean, the guy outsold John Cena in merch and drew well on a Pay-Per-View without him and WrestleMania makes a ton of money no matter what. I think he could draw a damn fine amount, but I get you. I believe his exact quote was that he sold more tshirts. I'll believe that. But, There is no way he sold more merchandise than Cena. A Punk fan has on a 30 dollar tshirt. A cena fan has the 30 dollar tshirt, the 40 dollar hat, the arm bands etc. You are correct, that's what I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Nov 30, 2014 20:17:08 GMT -5
Sums up Punk's popularity on the Internet for years, really. He's awesome at it, to be honest. The holes in his stories are the funniest part, even just the ones where he contradicts either himself or basic reality. "I don't care about money, BUT HERE IS ME TALKING ABOUT ALL THE TIMES I SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID MORE!" "I stole the show at several WrestleManias in a row (but obviously didn't at all)." "I hate how they bring in part-timers for big paydays. I mean I want to be a part-timer they bring in for big paydays." Once he started implying that he deserved to be on the same pay level as The Rock, Brock Lesnar, John Cena, The Undertaker, and Triple H I realized that the man truly is delusional. Not even just on the same pay level, but literally "not a penny less" -- he's completely lost it. Although pretty much every wrestler that ends up out of the big leagues and has been reduced to doing shoot interviews has a delusional high opinion of themselves. They all think they got screwed over and should have main evented everything ever (although this is the most extreme case of it I've seen, and at least most guys have the excuse of their ramblings being drug-fueled). Perhaps that kind of ego is what's needed to ever get to WWE championship level. |
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Nov 30, 2014 20:23:58 GMT -5
Once he started implying that he deserved to be on the same pay level as The Rock, Brock Lesnar, John Cena, The Undertaker, and Triple H I realized that the man truly is delusional. Not even just on the same pay level, but literally "not a penny less" -- he's completely lost it. Although pretty much every wrestler that ends up out of the big leagues and has been reduced to doing shoot interviews has a delusional high opinion of themselves. They all think they got screwed over and should have main evented everything ever (although this is the most extreme case of it I've seen, and at least most guys have the excuse of their ramblings being drug-fueled). Perhaps that kind of ego is what's needed to ever get to WWE championship level. Like x10000 |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 30, 2014 20:29:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 1:44:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 20:30:15 GMT -5
When was that?! I don't remember that one. That looks brutal! |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Nov 30, 2014 20:37:32 GMT -5
The truth generally lies in the middle somewhere. I dont doubt a lot of what he said was true. But I also dont doubt that he is carefully positioned himself as a martyr. There is some truth to this. After multiples studies, it has been concluded (not necessarily proven) that our minds warp our memories as time goes by, especially when a memory evokes an emotional response. With that said, I don't believe 100% of the story is true, but I do believe the gist of it. I don't believe Ryback was trying to hurt Punk, nor do I believe the McMahons wanted to either. The McMahons understood they were lacking star power, which is why they were probably reluctant to give Punk time off. Ryback was probably in a state of "great, I was pushed to the top just to plummet." I doubt we'll hear the side of the story from the McMahons unless this is to go to court. I very much doubt the McMahons were jeporadize a mega star being shelved even longer to keep him on the road, if it was a serious injury. There is a difference between being injured and being hurt. I 100% believe Punk was HURT. And he would feel it even worse than others since he refuses to take any type of pain killers. But getting some pain killers, whether it be a pill or epideral, is what allows these guys to play hurt. Vince is all about the money. Short term increase with a high percentage of a long term loss....is NOT how Vince plays. Why do you think the network took so long to get out there? Success or failure, Vince carefully plots these things. He WANTS them to be a success. He would rather accept short term loss in order to increase his chances at long term gains. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Dec 1, 2014 7:20:09 GMT -5
ive said a hundred times Punk's long WWE title reign was amazing. the fact that a majority of it was spent taking a back seat on PPV and most RAW's to John Cena's meaningless feuds was complete bullcrap. Punk's statement of "the main event is the last match of the night" is absolutely true. There's been like 5 exceptions to that rule, but in wrestling lore, the main event is exactly that. the last thing people see on the show (TV). Punk as the WWE champion barely got any of that, despite being the overall best performer in the company through that time. then he got to lose the title to The Rock....who proceeded to hold it for 2 months without a defense, and punk got thrown into the leftover standard Wrestlemania Undertaker feud where the only reason it turned out any good was because (God rest his soul) Paul Bearer passed away in the middle of it. Punk should have gone until Wrestlemania holding the belt and dropped it to Rock in a 3-way main event. But the WWE was hell bent on over-selling "Cena/Rock II" which was a horrid, boring, stale, watered down match (partly due to Rock's injury). Then at that point Punk was pretty much thrown right back where he was before he became champ. Punk wasn't completely screwed over. But he certainly wasn't given the keys to the city the way he SHOULD have been. And you absolutely CANNOT fault him for wanting to main event Wrestlemania. Everyone from Cena down to Heath Slater should want to main event Wrestlemania....or else, why are you in the business? Punk's passion obviously was wrestling above all else, the man literally destroyed himself for "US" and yet people still give him crap for his decisions. It's tired, stale, and they need to get over themselves and their blind hate. Where would you go with that? Who does Rock drop the belt to and when? Does Cena ever get his big victory over Rock? |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Dec 1, 2014 10:03:37 GMT -5
ive said a hundred times Punk's long WWE title reign was amazing. the fact that a majority of it was spent taking a back seat on PPV and most RAW's to John Cena's meaningless feuds was complete bullcrap. Punk's statement of "the main event is the last match of the night" is absolutely true. There's been like 5 exceptions to that rule, but in wrestling lore, the main event is exactly that. the last thing people see on the show (TV). Punk as the WWE champion barely got any of that, despite being the overall best performer in the company through that time. then he got to lose the title to The Rock....who proceeded to hold it for 2 months without a defense, and punk got thrown into the leftover standard Wrestlemania Undertaker feud where the only reason it turned out any good was because (God rest his soul) Paul Bearer passed away in the middle of it. Punk should have gone until Wrestlemania holding the belt and dropped it to Rock in a 3-way main event. But the WWE was hell bent on over-selling "Cena/Rock II" which was a horrid, boring, stale, watered down match (partly due to Rock's injury). Then at that point Punk was pretty much thrown right back where he was before he became champ. Punk wasn't completely screwed over. But he certainly wasn't given the keys to the city the way he SHOULD have been. And you absolutely CANNOT fault him for wanting to main event Wrestlemania. Everyone from Cena down to Heath Slater should want to main event Wrestlemania....or else, why are you in the business? Punk's passion obviously was wrestling above all else, the man literally destroyed himself for "US" and yet people still give him crap for his decisions. It's tired, stale, and they need to get over themselves and their blind hate. Where would you go with that? Who does Rock drop the belt to and when? Does Cena ever get his big victory over Rock? That's a very valid point. I also thought Punk should have retained till Mania, but you got a fantastic point. I'm sure Rock wanted another run as champion and I don't see any other realistic scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Dec 1, 2014 10:21:42 GMT -5
Where would you go with that? Who does Rock drop the belt to and when? Does Cena ever get his big victory over Rock? That's a very valid point. I also thought Punk should have retained till Mania, but you got a fantastic point. I'm sure Rock wanted another run as champion and I don't see any other realistic scenario. I think its a difficult situation which, when you look at it from both WWE's and the fans' perspective, has no easy answer. I wrote out my version a few pages back which I will repost below, but even that isn't perfect and some Punk fans would still be upset by it. However, I think it would have been the best way to keep the main beats of the story (Rock winning the title and generating buzz for the WWE as a result; Cena getting redemption through a win over Rock; that win being even more special because no one else had got it). I also think by injecting Punk into the main event it would have meant that the build up could have been a lot more varied, with different segments that generally involve Punk causing mayhem for the other two guys. It could have also been a great match, perhaps even near (but unlikely to be on the same level as) Angle vs. Undertaker vs. Rock, which was IMO one of the greatest triple threats ever (and had some similarities with heel Angle causing trouble for the other two competitors). Speaking of UT, it does leave him without a WM opponent, but I do think that could have been dealt with. Maybe a match with a Shield member? Maybe a match with all 3? UT could have really brought those guys up a notch whilst still defending his streak. Lose the title at RR (WWE wanted Rock to be champion, fans wanted Rock to be champion, it was gonna happen). Forefit his rematch clause in return for going into an EC match for Cena's WM spot, putting real life into the story by saying his last dream is to main event WM. Rock beats someone else at EC (I'd go for Jericho because the feud and nostalgia could be great, but for those asking for his to elevate a young star by facing them there's plenty of options, such as a Shield representative after they attacked him at the RR or Bryan or someone). Punk then pins Cena clean to win the EC, earning a spot at WM. Cena gets put back into the match (like Rey in 2006), and they have the triple threat. Cena FU's Punk, FU's Rock, wins clean. The main problem with this is that it can be argued that Rock only lost 'cos he had 2 opponents, tainting Cena's win over him. It would have to relegate Punk to a 3rd wheel, with him storming off whilst Rock & Cena shake hands at the end, and if that happened then that would just be what Punk complained about instead. But at least he would have been there. |
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Dec 1, 2014 10:48:31 GMT -5
Where would you go with that? Who does Rock drop the belt to and when? Does Cena ever get his big victory over Rock? That's a very valid point. I also thought Punk should have retained till Mania, but you got a fantastic point. I'm sure Rock wanted another run as champion and I don't see any other realistic scenario. I would agree....however Rock didn't want another "run"... because after winning the belt he only wrestled 1 match in between Rumble & Mania. That's not a run by any stretch. I don't even remember him appearing on RAW more than once or twice during that time too. I still felt like the WWE should have gone the 'Taker/Cena route. They could have EASILY sold Wrestlemania on that match considering it was the biggest opponent (besides Lesnar) for Undertaker to face. Then you have Rock vs Punk for the title, built up as a legitimate big match...Rock goes over winning the belt for the final time and retires the next night on RAW giving up the title to set up a tournament over the next few months...which builds excitement for the new champion. If not that, because people think that no one would have bought WM for Punk/Rock then you have Rock beat Punk at Rumble as he did....drop the title to Cena at the next PPV and Punk vs Cena becomes the 'Mania main event and you get Rock going up against 'Taker. Or you go the triple threat route with Rock taking the title for his send-off and retiring the next night same as I said before. Listen this is WRESTLING. There are a million ways to do things. People were going to buy Wrestlemania regardless. Rock/Cena II sucked hard. So what's better? A match that doesnt APPEAR "as big" but delievrs 5-star memorable quality? or a match that is over-sold as the biggest re-match ever but is at best a 2 star semi-event with CenawinsLOL. In the end it's all about the builds. The WWE HAS THE ABILITY to sell anything they want. They could have made it work. But they didnt/dont care about that. It's all about what's easy and what big name from the past can they throw in a main event at Wrestlemania. I'm really just saying Punk has the right to be pissed off he never got that spot. As much of a right as every other superstar in history that cared as much as he did. Considering the WWE had a chance to make him Top Face 1a. and completely botched it up,yet he still maintained. Punk was the kind of guy that could sell tickets and DID. Just because YOU (internet fan ______) don't like him doesn't mean that isn't true. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 1:44:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 10:51:22 GMT -5
Jericho on Punk's podcast.
|
|
