Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 10:52:15 GMT -5
Jericho on Punk's podcast. What does he say? I can't watch right now. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 10:57:48 GMT -5
Jericho on Punk's podcast. What does he say? I can't watch right now. Not a whole lot. He just talks about how he invited Punk onto one of his podcasts, and it nearly went ahead but Punk ended up cancelling. He still considers Punk a friend. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Dec 1, 2014 11:18:43 GMT -5
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. Bravo again. The best thing here is that WrestleMania is going to sell regardless. CM Punk was a proven commodity who could headline WrestleMania and it would still make a ton of money. Look at this year with Randy Orton and Daniel Bryan headlining. It still made over a billion dollars for New Orleans. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Dec 1, 2014 11:43:52 GMT -5
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. But for all we know though Rock did want to be champion one more time. No matter the length. And IF Rock wanted another reign, we all know Vince was gonna give it to him. Punk even says that had he not turned heel that he would have lost the title to Bryan. Punk also said Vince told him Rock wanted to work with a heel (presumably for the title). Cause if not for the title, then Rock could have faced another heel without turning Punk. So apparently WWE/Vince was willing to give it to whatever Rock wanted for those few months. I agree Rock vs Cena II wasn't very good, but I don't think Rock retiring as Champion would have been much better. That would have not only tarnished Punk but it wouldn't look very good for whomever won the tournament. I also agree Cena vs Taker would have been better. But WWE most likely had the whole Cena/Rock feud planned for at least two full years. We complain WWE doesn't plan anything out but I think most can agree Rock vs Cena II was planned out before WM27. And finally I do agree that Punk could/should have been used better in some occasions. I loved Punk. He's one of my top 5 favorites ever. He was a breathe of fresh air. He certainly should have Main Event more PPVs. In that regard he should be pissed. Personally I wasn't ready for his WWE title reign to end. Especially to a part timer. No offense to Rock or Lesnar, but I want my champion to be on TV regularly. But as I said I think WWE had their plans set for WM, and unfortunately those plans did not include Punk. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 12:37:13 GMT -5
I figured it was Jericho that Punk was talking about when he said "people" were texting him so they could get his story on their podcast and not because they actually cared.
I'm sure Punk just assumed that's why Jericho was texting him though. I don't see Jericho being that type of guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Dec 1, 2014 12:53:57 GMT -5
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. But for all we know though Rock did want to be champion one more time. No matter the length. And IF Rock wanted another reign, we all know Vince was gonna give it to him. Punk even says that had he not turned heel that he would have lost the title to Bryan. Punk also said Vince told him Rock wanted to work with a heel (presumably for the title). Cause if not for the title, then Rock could have faced another heel without turning Punk. So apparently WWE/Vince was willing to give it to whatever Rock wanted for those few months. I agree Rock vs Cena II wasn't very good, but I don't think Rock retiring as Champion would have been much better. That would have not only tarnished Punk but it wouldn't look very good for whomever won the tournament. I also agree Cena vs Taker would have been better. But WWE most likely had the whole Cena/Rock feud planned for at least two full years. We complain WWE doesn't plan anything out but I think most can agree Rock vs Cena II was planned out before WM27. And finally I do agree that Punk could/should have been used better in some occasions. I loved Punk. He's one of my top 5 favorites ever. He was a breathe of fresh air. He certainly should have Main Event more PPVs. In that regard he should be pissed. Personally I wasn't ready for his WWE title reign to end. Especially to a part timer. No offense to Rock or Lesnar, but I want my champion to be on TV regularly. But as I said I think WWE had their plans set for WM, and unfortunately those plans did not include Punk. I think what's becoming increasingly clear is that WWE never really saw anything monumentally special in Punk. This is the part where people jump all over the fact that he held the WWE Title for over a year. Yeah, I get it. But if what Punk is saying was true, then they were willing to pull it off of him just like that to make sure that The Rock had a heel to devour. Punk's title reign was just one giant placeholder while waiting for The Rock to come in and claim his throne. There was simply no one else to take the title at the time. Cena was being kept away to ensure that his win against The Rock meant something, and the rest of the usual contenders were working with the World Title. It was less about Punk's talent and ability than it was simply a right place/right time scenario (or wrong place/wrong time, depending on how you look at it.) It seems like a lot of his disgust originates from the Mania 29 booking, and on that front, I agree with him. I thought that show was one of the most poorly built, poorly executed Wrestlemanias in recent memory. Rock/Cena had no fire. Taker/Punk was obviously a consolation prize for both guys. It was just bad. The triple threat match was tossed around here when the Pay-Per-View was coming up, and still, to this day, it makes so much more sense than the way things went. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Dec 1, 2014 13:07:59 GMT -5
But for all we know though Rock did want to be champion one more time. No matter the length. And IF Rock wanted another reign, we all know Vince was gonna give it to him. Punk even says that had he not turned heel that he would have lost the title to Bryan. Punk also said Vince told him Rock wanted to work with a heel (presumably for the title). Cause if not for the title, then Rock could have faced another heel without turning Punk. So apparently WWE/Vince was willing to give it to whatever Rock wanted for those few months. I agree Rock vs Cena II wasn't very good, but I don't think Rock retiring as Champion would have been much better. That would have not only tarnished Punk but it wouldn't look very good for whomever won the tournament. I also agree Cena vs Taker would have been better. But WWE most likely had the whole Cena/Rock feud planned for at least two full years. We complain WWE doesn't plan anything out but I think most can agree Rock vs Cena II was planned out before WM27. And finally I do agree that Punk could/should have been used better in some occasions. I loved Punk. He's one of my top 5 favorites ever. He was a breathe of fresh air. He certainly should have Main Event more PPVs. In that regard he should be pissed. Personally I wasn't ready for his WWE title reign to end. Especially to a part timer. No offense to Rock or Lesnar, but I want my champion to be on TV regularly. But as I said I think WWE had their plans set for WM, and unfortunately those plans did not include Punk. I think what's becoming increasingly clear is that WWE never really saw anything monumentally special in Punk. This is the part where people jump all over the fact that he held the WWE Title for over a year. Yeah, I get it. But if what Punk is saying was true, then they were willing to pull it off of him just like that to make sure that The Rock had a heel to devour. Punk's title reign was just one giant placeholder while waiting for The Rock to come in and claim his throne. There was simply no one else to take the title at the time. Cena was being kept away to ensure that his win against The Rock meant something, and the rest of the usual contenders were working with the World Title. It was less about Punk's talent and ability than it was simply a right place/right time scenario (or wrong place/wrong time, depending on how you look at it.) It seems like a lot of his disgust originates from the Mania 29 booking, and on that front, I agree with him. I thought that show was one of the most poorly built, poorly executed Wrestlemanias in recent memory. Rock/Cena had no fire. Taker/Punk was obviously a consolation prize for both guys. It was just bad. The triple threat match was tossed around here when the Pay-Per-View was coming up, and still, to this day, it makes so much more sense than the way things went. Oh I agree. As I've said WM29 and especially Rock/Cena II was a let down. And I was just like everyone else saying that Punk should have held the title till WM. But Mike brought up a valid point that if the Rock was gonna get another run and Cena was gonna get his one on one victory at a WM it almost had to go the way it did. Not saying I wanted it that way, but I can also see that point. I also don't think it was fair for Vince to jerk Punk around just to please the Rock but I could totally see Vince doing that. Rock blew up and Vince wanted him back. Maybe Punk did only hold the title because they were too focused on Rock vs Cena? And if that is the case, then it's a damn shame because Punk could have been so much more than a placeholder. |
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Dec 1, 2014 13:15:37 GMT -5
I think what's becoming increasingly clear is that WWE never really saw anything monumentally special in Punk. This is the part where people jump all over the fact that he held the WWE Title for over a year. Yeah, I get it. But if what Punk is saying was true, then they were willing to pull it off of him just like that to make sure that The Rock had a heel to devour. Punk's title reign was just one giant placeholder while waiting for The Rock to come in and claim his throne. There was simply no one else to take the title at the time. Cena was being kept away to ensure that his win against The Rock meant something, and the rest of the usual contenders were working with the World Title. It was less about Punk's talent and ability than it was simply a right place/right time scenario (or wrong place/wrong time, depending on how you look at it.) It seems like a lot of his disgust originates from the Mania 29 booking, and on that front, I agree with him. I thought that show was one of the most poorly built, poorly executed Wrestlemanias in recent memory. Rock/Cena had no fire. Taker/Punk was obviously a consolation prize for both guys. It was just bad. The triple threat match was tossed around here when the Pay-Per-View was coming up, and still, to this day, it makes so much more sense than the way things went. Oh I agree. As I've said WM29 and especially Rock/Cena II was a let down. And I was just like everyone else saying that Punk should have held the title till WM. But Mike brought up a valid point that if the Rock was gonna get another run and Cena was gonna get his one on one victory at a WM it almost had to go the way it did. Not saying I wanted it that way, but I can also see that point. I also don't think it was fair for Vince to jerk Punk around just to please the Rock but I could totally see Vince doing that. Rock blew up and Vince wanted him back. Maybe Punk did only hold the title because they were too focused on Rock vs Cena? And if that is the case, then it's a damn shame because Punk could have been so much more than a placeholder. Yeah, if you look back at Punk's run during that time, it was still all about Cena. The title became the afterthought to Rock/Cena I, then to Cena vs. Johnny, Cena vs. Big Show, etc. Punk didn't get back into the main event until Cena came calling again, and even then, H/Lesnar was there to steal that thunder too. They had the WWE title going on auto-pilot during that time. It was likely easier to let Punk keep retaining than it was to do anything creative with the angles, because, again, it was all about Cena/Johnny/Show/Rock/H/Lesnar. Once he finally got into the main event, it was only because Cena was hurt. And, as we all know, the Ryback feud did absolutely no one any favors. As for the title reign thing, I agree to a certain extent. But, to that point, why not have Punk retain at the Rumble and then lose the title to The Rock in the rematch at Elimination Chamber? Not only would that have given them 3-4 more weeks with the champion on TV regularly, but it would have legitimized Punk and gone a long way in making the run seem like it was a big thing, rather than a placeholder. Rock still gets the title, still wins the feud, still goes on to Cena (with Punk having legitimate claims to his rematch, making it a triple threat), and the whole thing shakes down in a much more logical manner. It's easy to say hindsight is 20/20, but these are all things we were all saying in '13 when this was going on. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 13:24:24 GMT -5
I've listened to half of it so far. I'm so glad I'm not one of those fans he describes that say he owes them stuff and they bought his house. I love Punk as a performer, and I don't think he's as much an bunghole as people make him out to be, he's just very open, and straight forward with how he feels. He doesn't beat around the bush, and I can respect that. I have no bad words to say towards him, he was unhappy and he left. Do I wish he was still around? Absolutely, but now I understand why he isn't, and I don't blame him at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Dec 1, 2014 13:30:11 GMT -5
Oh I agree. As I've said WM29 and especially Rock/Cena II was a let down. And I was just like everyone else saying that Punk should have held the title till WM. But Mike brought up a valid point that if the Rock was gonna get another run and Cena was gonna get his one on one victory at a WM it almost had to go the way it did. Not saying I wanted it that way, but I can also see that point. I also don't think it was fair for Vince to jerk Punk around just to please the Rock but I could totally see Vince doing that. Rock blew up and Vince wanted him back. Maybe Punk did only hold the title because they were too focused on Rock vs Cena? And if that is the case, then it's a damn shame because Punk could have been so much more than a placeholder. Yeah, if you look back at Punk's run during that time, it was still all about Cena. The title became the afterthought to Rock/Cena I, then to Cena vs. Johnny, Cena vs. Big Show, etc. Punk didn't get back into the main event until Cena came calling again, and even then, H/Lesnar was there to steal that thunder too. They had the WWE title going on auto-pilot during that time. It was likely easier to let Punk keep retaining than it was to do anything creative with the angles, because, again, it was all about Cena/Johnny/Show/Rock/H/Lesnar. Once he finally got into the main event, it was only because Cena was hurt. And, as we all know, the Ryback feud did absolutely no one any favors. As for the title reign thing, I agree to a certain extent. But, to that point, why not have Punk retain at the Rumble and then lose the title to The Rock in the rematch at Elimination Chamber? Not only would that have given them 3-4 more weeks with the champion on TV regularly, but it would have legitimized Punk and gone a long way in making the run seem like it was a big thing, rather than a placeholder. Rock still gets the title, still wins the feud, still goes on to Cena (with Punk having legitimate claims to his rematch, making it a triple threat), and the whole thing shakes down in a much more logical manner. It's easy to say hindsight is 20/20, but these are all things we were all saying in '13 when this was going on. I also like your idea very much, but I assume they didn't want Rock losing till Cena did it. That way Cena looked stronger. But I could be wrong. Not sure why Vince only worries about Cena, but that's always been Vince's style. Dating all the way back to Hogan. I've always been a proponent that Punk should have main evented every PPVs as champion. Any champion should. I agree Punk should be pissed about taking a backseat as champion. I am also not a fan of part timers defeating current stars all the time or hogging the Main Event. Not sure why they insist on doing that. That doesn't benefit anyone. I completely agree with Punk on all that. |
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Dec 1, 2014 13:35:44 GMT -5
And finally I do agree that Punk could/should have been used better in some occasions. I loved Punk. He's one of my top 5 favorites ever. He was a breathe of fresh air. He certainly should have Main Event more PPVs. In that regard he should be pissed. Personally I wasn't ready for his WWE title reign to end. Especially to a part timer. No offense to Rock or Lesnar, but I want my champion to be on TV regularly. But as I said I think WWE had their plans set for WM, and unfortunately those plans did not include Punk. to be honest, i hated how Punk's reign ended, but i truthfully understood it. i just never thought it was going to be a large part of the end of Punk's career. it was completely obvious the WWE had plans to milk Cena/Rock as much as they could and those 2 deserved their spot. Rock's little sympathy reign was fine, he gave a lot to the business in his SHORT time fully involved with it. i guess the point was that apparently everyone just assumed there was absolutely NO other options the WWE could have done if they wanted. i was just thinking of a few possible scenarios without really diving into a fullblown armchair Wrestlemania. but i get where you are coming from of course |
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Dec 1, 2014 13:43:33 GMT -5
Yeah, if you look back at Punk's run during that time, it was still all about Cena. The title became the afterthought to Rock/Cena I, then to Cena vs. Johnny, Cena vs. Big Show, etc. Punk didn't get back into the main event until Cena came calling again, and even then, H/Lesnar was there to steal that thunder too. They had the WWE title going on auto-pilot during that time. It was likely easier to let Punk keep retaining than it was to do anything creative with the angles, because, again, it was all about Cena/Johnny/Show/Rock/H/Lesnar. Once he finally got into the main event, it was only because Cena was hurt. And, as we all know, the Ryback feud did absolutely no one any favors. As for the title reign thing, I agree to a certain extent. But, to that point, why not have Punk retain at the Rumble and then lose the title to The Rock in the rematch at Elimination Chamber? Not only would that have given them 3-4 more weeks with the champion on TV regularly, but it would have legitimized Punk and gone a long way in making the run seem like it was a big thing, rather than a placeholder. Rock still gets the title, still wins the feud, still goes on to Cena (with Punk having legitimate claims to his rematch, making it a triple threat), and the whole thing shakes down in a much more logical manner. It's easy to say hindsight is 20/20, but these are all things we were all saying in '13 when this was going on. Logically....that would have been a win-win. But it was crystal clear the WWE's focus was on Rock winning the title and Cena getting it from him in the "overcome the odds moment #142152363 of epic awesome amazing unbelieveable" that's where Punk became the 3rd wheel. destroying Ryback's momentum was a horrid choice...but this is the WWE where they pretty much just do what they want when they want. and most of the stuff we see on TV and played out in stories is due to backstage politics and its pretty clear now that the WWE/Triple H never REALLY saw anything in Punk. Yeah they gave him the greenlight for the pipe bomb, and they gave him a lot...but it always felt like they didn't push hard for him the way they did guys like Orton or Del Rio or Sheamus even. I also think that Daniel Bryan getting his big "push" irked Punk a little....because Punk never had the YES chant to really get over, he was just a guy that people liked, some way more than others. Punk was never a guy to just take the ups and downs of a wrestling life. The guy wants to be the best. You cannot fault him for that. He probably didnt always handle himself in the best way possible which may have been part of the reason he was never handed the keys to the car....but even still, at some point Vince should have realized he had a potential mega star sitting right in his lap and he let it go for another part timer and the rest of the meaningless crapthat's wandering around doing nothing right now. |
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Dec 1, 2014 13:54:34 GMT -5
Good for Jericho still taking the high route even though Punk was obviously bashing him as one of the people with "incentives" who try to "get him on their podcasts "
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Dec 1, 2014 13:55:36 GMT -5
Good for Jericho still taking the high route even though Punk was obviously bashing him as one of the people with "incentives" who try to "get him on their podcasts " Obviously? I had no idea that he was discussing Chris Jericho or even insinuating him. You sure do make a lot of assumptions and consider them to be gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Dec 1, 2014 14:00:19 GMT -5
Good for Jericho still taking the high route even though Punk was obviously bashing him as one of the people with "incentives" who try to "get him on their podcasts " Obviously? I had no idea that he was discussing Chris Jericho or even insinuating him. You sure do make a lot of assumptions and consider them to be gospel. Were they not speaking about Jericho RIGHT BEFORE he said those thigs??? |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Dec 1, 2014 14:03:20 GMT -5
Obviously? I had no idea that he was discussing Chris Jericho or even insinuating him. You sure do make a lot of assumptions and consider them to be gospel. Were they not speaking about Jericho RIGHT BEFORE he said those thigs??? I honestly don't remember. It's possible. I literally was unsure of who he was talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Dec 1, 2014 14:07:07 GMT -5
Were they not speaking about Jericho RIGHT BEFORE he said those thigs??? I honestly don't remember. It's possible. I literally was unsure of who he was talking about. Yeah man go back to thT part. I'm pretty sure they were talking about his jericho feud or something with jericho and that transitionned into the "people have incentives " stuff. I took it as his explanation for pulling out of talk is jericho. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Dec 1, 2014 14:11:42 GMT -5
I honestly don't remember. It's possible. I literally was unsure of who he was talking about. Yeah man go back to thT part. I'm pretty sure they were talking about his jericho feud or something with jericho and that transitionned into the "people have incentives " stuff. I took it as his explanation for pulling out of talk is jericho. It's very possible, I'll check it out later. Also, I'm not trying to start anything when I post these things. I just know that you're a bit of a biased party in this since Punk called out Ryback and you love him. |
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Dec 1, 2014 14:24:17 GMT -5
Yeah man go back to thT part. I'm pretty sure they were talking about his jericho feud or something with jericho and that transitionned into the "people have incentives " stuff. I took it as his explanation for pulling out of talk is jericho. It's very possible, I'll check it out later. Also, I'm not trying to start anything when I post these things. I just know that you're a bit of a biased party in this since Punk called out Ryback and you love him. Yeah but I also am looking at it from punks side too. He had several very valid points. And espeically this MRSA thing That is nothing to  with, and if I know this WWE docs def do too. But He was in the wrong by calling anyone out by name and slandering them Idc what they did to him, heat of the moment or not he shouldve chose his words more carefully when addressing specific people. Sometimes I don't think he realizes how many people take every word he says very literally even when he's just belligerently trash talking. Now suddenly my favorite wrestler has reportedly lost faith from creative yet again and a planned big time match with HHH has been scrapped. And I ing know it's not because of his match with Cesaro. There was nothing wrong with that match. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Dec 1, 2014 14:30:34 GMT -5
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. I see your points but I'm not sure any of them would have worked. Cena has to get the rub over Rock - to do anything else would just be silly, and an open admission that WWE is cr*p compared to what it used to be, which they obviously don't want to do - which rules out most of them. Punk-Rock at WM could work if it wasn't for that, but Cena-'Taker and Punk-Rock are both matches that should be going on last really. I still think the triple threat, with Cena going over clean, was the way forward. I'd then build to Cena-UT for the title at WM 30, have UT win and then leave the title for a tournament (which would be better than Rock doing it as UT was still a WWE wrestler and not a returning guy; the only inference from the match is that UT can't be beaten at WM by anyone), which Bryan then wins. 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. Bravo again. The best thing here is that WrestleMania is going to sell regardless. CM Punk was a proven commodity who could headline WrestleMania and it would still make a ton of money. Look at this year with Randy Orton and Daniel Bryan headlining. It still made over a billion dollars for New Orleans.Excuse me if I'm misreading the tone of your comment, but it sounds like you're either implying through the use of the word 'still' that either Bryan and Orton weren't proven commodities, or that Punk was bigger than both of them. Either way, I don't see that as remotely true. Bryan between SummerSlam-WrestleMania was more over than Punk has ever been (even in 2011), and Orton is definitely a bigger name than Punk. Orton is arguably one of the very few stars to have broken the mainstream, something Punk hasn't really come close to doing - or at the very least, the RKO has broken into the mainstream, whereas Punk isn't really known by non-wrestling fans. Certainly no one I know who doesn't watch WWE would know who he is, but everyone knows what an RKO is and they joke about it a lot after the vines went viral (and sometimes even before that). |
|
