CM Punk finally breaks his silence.

[CrucifiedRaven]

I think some of you guys are missing the point when it comes to the "not all about the money" comment.

While he was in the business, of course he was ALL about the money. They all are. They all want the top spot. And they all want to make the money that comes with being in the top spot. CM Punk throughout the entire podcast basically says this is what he wants, this is his goal.

However the "not all about the money" comment comes when health and happiness takes priority over continuing his current lifestyle. CM Punk made a lot of money. He probably should have made even more. And he would have continued to make a lot more money if he stayed. But he chose to leave that future money on the table, because it wasn't worth it to him. It wasn't worth his happiness, his sanity, his health. The "not all about the money" comment is his mindset at the point when he left, not while he was working all those years previously. He loved the money, anyone would... until the point where all that money wasn't worth it anymore.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

With all the things that could (and have already) been said about this....and all the dissections of the subject by folks who are for or against Punk, I find his attitude to be one that we've all seen a million times in our own lives..... at home, the workplace and in our personal relations.....his dealing with WWE effectively amounted to "Do everything I want......100% the way I want it done....and shucks, everything will be just great!"

He doesn't like the way the company treated him and can't for the life of him understand why they didn't adopt all his ideas? Fine, we've all had feelings like that in our lifetimes.... suggestions we made to whomever we were speaking seemed so completely logical to us, right?

Well, WWE had different ideas, based mainly on the notion that they had more things to concern themselves than just the CM Punk character, while he had only himself to worry about. Doubtless, some of the company's conclusions and actions were stupid and ill-conceived while others were good and logical.

That he would walk out on WWE because they weren't doing things his way is something that people have been doing since time began.....but walking out on all the fans who were the ones responsible for his being able to live a life where he doesn't have to worry about money (I haven't reached that point yet, have you?) is what I see as a bigger concern.

Hell, these good folks are still chanting his name at wrestling shows, even after all these months.

Yeah, yeah, the guy has a right to do whatever he wants with his life, but given the fame and adulation he achieved in a business he entered in the first place because he loved it, I wonder if we all wouldn't have been better served had he continued performing while looking to change things from within.

I think it's less of an issue his ideas were shot down than it is that his ideas were shot down and then two weeks later Cena gets to run with those same ideas. I know that would piss me off enough to walk if that happened to me.

 

[BillAlfonsos_Whistle]

Honestly, not that I don't think there is a lot of truth to all of this and the heat between WWE/HHH/Vinny Mac and CM Punk is legit....they are working it so well that in two or three years when Cult of Personality hits for Punk to win a Rumble or something the place is going to come unhinged.

IMHO the only person this all helps is CM Punk himself. Mark my words, he will walk into the top babyface spot in the WWE within five years and it won't be for a one and done Mania match either.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

One thing that bugs me a lot during is interview was when he talked about his health, i made me think of all these old school wrestlers like ric flair and roddy piper that lived in a world that you had to wrestle hurt no matter what and you didn't say anything to anyone about it. Punk could have went to to wwe doctor and ask him to check at his back as far as the staff infection is concern and the guys would have probably have him go to a doctor to have it check out same thing goes for the concussion but he choice to be miserable and tell peoples what to do and that probably piss the doctor off to a point that he decides to not help him out. Punk had the choice numerous time from what i have heard to take more time off to heel but decided to come back early because they ask him to. That's on him and he shouldn't have blame it on others like he did.

The one think that i'm hoping is true and that'S the report that Aj Lee will take a break after TLC because i really believe that she will be in the dog house with WWE officials because of that and that they will take out their frustration on her by having her job out to every divas on the rosters and maybe be taking out of house shows and that would be really too bad because she doesn't deserve to get the backlash from this interview.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

One thing that bugs me a lot during is interview was when he talked about his health, i made me think of all these old school wrestlers like ric flair and roddy piper that lived in a world that you had to wrestle hurt no matter what and you didn't say anything to anyone about it. Punk could have went to to wwe doctor and ask him to check at his back as far as the staff infection is concern and the guys would have probably have him go to a doctor to have it check out same thing goes for the concussion but he choice to be miserable and tell peoples what to do and that probably piss the doctor off to a point that he decides to not help him out. Punk had the choice numerous time from what i have heard to take more time off to heel but decided to come back early because they ask him to. That's on him and he shouldn't have blame it on others like he did.

The one think that i'm hoping is true and that'S the report that Aj Lee will take a break after TLC because i really believe that she will be in the dog house with WWE officials because of that and that they will take out their frustration on her by having her job out to every divas on the rosters and maybe be taking out of house shows and that would be really too bad because she doesn't deserve to get the backlash from this interview.

If you listen to the old-timers talk (some of Nick Bockwinkel's shoot interviews are good examples) you find that they really didn't do all that much in the way of body damaging stunts that they've been doing routinely for the past 20 years (ECW has a lot to answer for over that trend).

It's like Jim Cornette says: "It used to be everyone thought we were hurting each other when we really weren't; now nobody thinks we're hurting each other when we really are. So who's the marks?"

Those old-timers where living into their 70s and 80s, while these days you hear about wrestlers dying in their 40s and 50s. Coincidence? I think not.....

 

[Darkshadow1234]

If you listen to the old-timers talk (some of Nick Bockwinkel's shoot interviews are good examples) you find that they really didn't do all that much in the way of body damaging stunts that they've been doing routinely for the past 20 years (ECW has a lot to answer for over that trend).

It's like Jim Cornette says: "It used to be everyone thought we were hurting each other when we really weren't; now nobody thinks we're hurting each other when we really are. So who's the marks?"

Those old-timers where living into their 70s and 80s, while these days you hear about wrestlers dying in their 40s and 50s. Coincidence? I think not.....

you right one the money.
100% agreed.

ECW did have body damaging stunts but most of them are still living now.
They may be bad off but still living.
Unlike WWE, they have wrestlers dieing young.

 

[Navi]

you right one the money.
100% agreed.

ECW did have body damaging stunts but most of them are still living now.
They may be bad off but still living.
Unlike WWE, they have wrestlers dieing young.

Does no-one think that part of the stress on their bodies might be because of the sheer amount of shows they work. Back 20-30 years ago, they didn't do even a fraction of what these wrestlers have to do now. With the weekly TV shows, monthly PPV's and live events, these guys are on the road 300 days a year. Include the travel time, they have virtually no down time at all.

When you are out there night after night getting the crap beat out of you, there is no time for your body to heal from anything, the injuries just compound on top of each other. Plus the bumps they take must be absolute hell for some of them.

I'm not even going to touch the steroids issue, cause according to the WWE their guys don't use them. Yea okay then.

I know that they know what they're getting themselves into, but we are going to continue to see wrestlers dying at a young age. The human body can only put up with so much before it say's, that's it I'm done.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Does no-one think that part of the stress on their bodies might be because of the sheer amount of shows they work. Back 20-30 years ago, they didn't do even a fraction of what these wrestlers have to do now. With the weekly TV shows, monthly PPV's and live events, these guys are on the road 300 days a year. Include the travel time, they have virtually no down time at all.

When you are out there night after night getting the crap beat out of you, there is no time for your body to heal from anything, the injuries just compound on top of each other. Plus the bumps they take must be absolute hell for some of them.

I'm not even going to touch the steroids issue, cause according to the WWE their guys don't use them. Yea okay then.

I know that they know what they're getting themselves into, but we are going to continue to see wrestlers dying at a young age. The human body can only put up with so much before it say's, that's it I'm done.

You right. Back in the old days, they didn't as much as the wrestlers now. They were alot safer back then compared to now.

Nowadays, wrestlers barely have time to rest. That's one of the reasons people are dieing young.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

Does no-one think that part of the stress on their bodies might be because of the sheer amount of shows they work. Back 20-30 years ago, they didn't do even a fraction of what these wrestlers have to do now. With the weekly TV shows, monthly PPV's and live events, these guys are on the road 300 days a year. Include the travel time, they have virtually no down time at all.

When you are out there night after night getting the crap beat out of you, there is no time for your body to heal from anything, the injuries just compound on top of each other. Plus the bumps they take must be absolute hell for some of them.

I'm not even going to touch the steroids issue, cause according to the WWE their guys don't use them. Yea okay then.

I know that they know what they're getting themselves into, but we are going to continue to see wrestlers dying at a young age. The human body can only put up with so much before it say's, that's it I'm done.

The schedules back then were comparable to today, just less flying and more long distance driving. Only in the AWA was the road schedule relatively light.

If you look up the number of matches individual wrestlers had year by year from back then to today you'll see they're pretty similar (if anything they're shorting the old-timers matches as the records weren't kept as religiously back then) >>>>>
http://wrestlingdata.com/

 

[supaman5279]

Punk walked out. The situation was insanely screwed up, but in the end he walked out. It's been proven time and time again that he's always been well..a punk. Punk wanted money. He said it numerous times in the interview that he wanted the same amount of pay as Taker, HHH, Cena etc. for Wrestlemania. When he "didn't" get his pay he flipped out. He flipped out for a whole year because the "didn't" get what he felt like he deserved. Then he FINDS HIS WRESTLEMANIA BONUS CHECK!!! Doesn't that warrant some kind of apology on his part. Couldn't he say sorry I realize you did pay me a cut for Wrestlemania. But instead he demands WWE re issue him the money he complained about for a whole year that he never got. So in return shouldn't he have apologized or take some kind of fault for it?

 

[Navi]

You right. Back in the old days, they didn't as much as the wrestlers now. They were alot safer back then compared to now.

Nowadays, wrestlers barely have time to rest. That's one of the reasons people are dieing young.

That is not what I said if you bothered to read the post. And no I didn't say they were dying young because they didn't have time to rest. What I said was they don't have time to have injuries that they incur heal.

Look at Reigns, he worked with a hernia, and in his own words, said he was "trying to gut it out", that's the kind of environment that has been created today. When wrestler's are working injured it's not a good thing. I understand they have to do it on occasion, but surely with the roster the size that it is, and NXT guys waiting in the wings, injured wrestlers should have time off to heal. It's not like they can't fill a card if one or two goes down.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The schedules back then were comparable to today, just less flying and more long distance driving. Only in the AWA was the road schedule relatively light.

If you look up the number of matches individual wrestlers had year by year from back then to today you'll see they're pretty similar (if anything they're shorting the old-timers matches as the records weren't kept as religiously back then) >>>>>
http://wrestlingdata.com/

True.

A lot of wrestlers in the old days still had to do a ton of traveling, especially journeyman wrestlers. Back in the old days, for instance, you might see someone like Iceman King Parsons work a card in Dallas and have to travel 200 miles the next day to do a show in Amarillo, then maybe back to do a WCCW house show in the Houston area the day after that & so on.

It's also true, however, that wrestlers are wrestling styles that are much more physical than back in the old days. At the same time, the reason companies moved away from a more catch-as-catch-can, technical style was because it stopped selling. People got bored with it and is a huge reason why companies like AWA went belly up. As I said in an earlier post, by '83, AWA fans would rather see Hulk Hogan do his thing instead of watching 20 minutes of Nick Bockwinkel trading side headlocks and armbars with his opponent. It wasn't at all uncommon for rest holds to make up much of the match itself; you'd have a guy take another guy down in a side headlock, trying to pin him by shifting his weight, the wrestler taking the move would spin the other wrestler over to try to pin him only for said wrestler to shift his weight back over into the side headlock. They may do that sequence several times before the wrestler doing the headlock is whipped into the ropes, hits a shoulder block, crosses over the back of the other wrestler, waits until he gets back to his feet, puts him in the side headlock again, takes him back down and the sequence starts all over again. Before you know it, a good 5 to 8 minutes is eaten up with the rest hold sequence. These days, you put a guy in a side headlock or reverse chinlock for more than 60 seconds, you get the "boring" treatment from the crowd.

WWE's schedule is intense, but an intense road schedule is part of how so many wrestlers are able to make big money in WWE. You want the international fame and the 6 or 7 figure salary to go with it, touring is the price that has to be paid.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

That is not what I said if you bothered to read the post. And no I didn't say they were dying young because they didn't have time to rest. What I said was they don't have time to have injuries that they incur heal.

Look at Reigns, he worked with a hernia, and in his own words, said he was "trying to gut it out", that's the kind of environment that has been created today. When wrestler's are working injured it's not a good thing. I understand they have to do it on occasion, but surely with the roster the size that it is, and NXT guys waiting in the wings, injured wrestlers should have time off to heal. It's not like they can't fill a card if one or two goes down.

I was agreeing on what you said.

Then I just put my view on it. That's all.
Putting my opinion on it.
While agreeing with you. Calm down bro. Not that serious

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

True.

A lot of wrestlers in the old days still had to do a ton of traveling, especially journeyman wrestlers. Back in the old days, for instance, you might see someone like Iceman King Parsons work a card in Dallas and have to travel 200 miles the next day to do a show in Amarillo, then maybe back to do a WCCW house show in the Houston area the day after that & so on.

It's also true, however, that wrestlers are wrestling styles that are much more physical than back in the old days. At the same time, the reason companies moved away from a more catch-as-catch-can, technical style was because it stopped selling. People got bored with it and is a huge reason why companies like AWA went belly up. As I said in an earlier post, by '83, AWA fans would rather see Hulk Hogan do his thing instead of watching 20 minutes of Nick Bockwinkel trading side headlocks and armbars with his opponent. It wasn't at all uncommon for rest holds to make up much of the match itself; you'd have a guy take another guy down in a side headlock, trying to pin him by shifting his weight, the wrestler taking the move would spin the other wrestler over to try to pin him only for said wrestler to shift his weight back over into the side headlock. They may do that sequence several times before the wrestler doing the headlock is whipped into the ropes, hits a shoulder block, crosses over the back of the other wrestler, waits until he gets back to his feet, puts him in the side headlock again, takes him back down and the sequence starts all over again. Before you know it, a good 5 to 8 minutes is eaten up with the rest hold sequence. These days, you put a guy in a side headlock or reverse chinlock for more than 60 seconds, you get the "boring" treatment from the crowd.

WWE's schedule is intense, but an intense road schedule is part of how so many wrestlers are able to make big money in WWE. You want the international fame and the 6 or 7 figure salary to go with it, touring is the price that has to be paid.

And I referenced that earlier >>>>

If you listen to the old-timers talk (some of Nick Bockwinkel's shoot interviews are good examples) you find that they really didn't do all that much in the way of body damaging stunts that they've been doing routinely for the past 20 years (ECW has a lot to answer for over that trend).

It's like Jim Cornette says: "It used to be everyone thought we were hurting each other when we really weren't; now nobody thinks we're hurting each other when we really are. So who's the marks?"

Those old-timers where living into their 70s and 80s, while these days you hear about wrestlers dying in their 40s and 50s. Coincidence? I think not.....

The technical style that people find boring did keep their bodies relatively intact. The wild stunts and high-spot wrestling that's been prevalent for the past couple of decades takes a serious toll and I question whether the price being paid is worth it.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

In my personal opinion. Wrestlers just need to take some time off to heal or recuperate. Basically some down time.
Wrestlers are gonna wrestle different styles. Like high flying, technical, hardcore and others. I love wrestlers to have variety of styles
I dont want wrestling to go back to the old days like in the 50s and 60s that will be boring.

The problem is that wrestlers now, don't have any time off. Or down time. That's the problem.

I don't want wrestlers styles toned down or altered. Because that would be stupid and boring.
Or wrestlers going back to the 50s or 60s with headlocks and other things.
I don't want styles like hardcore, high flying, and any style altered or toned down. or taken away. That would be dum.

Wrestlers just need a down time or an off season.

That's my opinion.
Don't care if you agree or not.

Thats how I feel

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Yet people assume Vince just likes big bodies because they are big bodies to look at. Maybe those big bodies and the style that works with those big bodies tends to hold up better in the long haul allowing a wrestler to work more and stay healthy.

Hmmm.

 

[CKDaimen702]

Excellent interview. The one thing that stands out for me, though, is that he claims he did not quit and was fired. Technically, he still quit. The firing was just a formality. He told Trips and Vince, "I'm done," and "Goodbye," and when they reached out to him a week later he basically told them nothing had changed. He made a big point of saying he did not quit, and was actually fired, but in actuality, it was both.

All the same, I'm glad he finally spoke out, and I think most of us can agree that it was well worth the wait.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I have to directly address this one. First off, Triple H was my favorite from 1999 until 2005 and I am still a fan of him. With that said, what good reason was there for Triple H to beat CM Punk at Night of Champions 2011?

For one, they had never had a one-on-one match on PPV.

Heaven forbid Punk fight a different opponent, one of the biggest names in the industry. Would you have preferred that he fight Cena yet again, or worse, Kevin Nash, who was the original choice (I know Punk is a good worker, but Nash stinks up any match he is in). Also, Nash would have buried Punk even worse than Triple H did.

When someone has a match with Triple H, especially these days, the match becomes a big deal. Maybe Punk would rather fight Zack Ryder on "Main Event" or "Superstars" instead, rather than one of the biggest names in WWE history on PPV.

Punk doesn't seem to get what an honor it is to have Triple H, the Rock and Undertaker as opponents in matches. There are some who would kill for programs like that, yet Punk seems to gripe about having to fight them. He has no sense of wrestling heritage.

 

[sanefan_har]

For one, they had never had a one-on-one match on PPV.
Punk doesn't seem to get what an honor it is to have Triple H, the Rock and Undertaker as opponents in matches. There are some who would kill for programs like that, yet Punk seems to gripe about having to fight them. He has no sense of wrestling heritage.

It doesn't answer the question he asked. Is it okay to let your momentum crash to a halt just because you're facing one of the greatest in the sport? That doesn't make any sense.

By your logic If Hulk Hogan had defeated Warrior at WM 6, Warrior would have never become as popular as he is today. If Hogan had lost to Andre at WM 3, he would never have had the following that grew from that point forward. If The Undertaker lost to Jimmy Snuka at WM 7, there wouldn't have been the streak. All because Hogan Warrior and Taker were in the ring with some of the greatest wrestlers as their opponents, and thereby maintaining the sense of wrestling heritage.


Punk was on a roll following his pipe bomb, he and HHH could have put on a clinic with Punk going over, and that wouldn't tarnish HHH's legacy in the least. And the Summer of Punk angle could have resulted in something better.

 

[sMark]

The other answer to health issues could be an Off-season. Look at what PPVs have traditionally lowest buyrates and give the guys a 3 months break. Of course WWE will not make money for 3 months then (only by the Network), but they will not pay their talents either, so it doesn't really hurt them.

April, May & June i think will be perfect. MitB match should return to WM card and WWE can make their PPVs stronger by replacing things like Battleground, Payback and something else.

The other positive here is writers will take the rest and come up with new ideas, the season will start in July with SummerSlam build up and WM revenge feuds if needed, and this will continues into Survivor Series and WM itself, with RAW after WM being the last show until the next season, where WWE will tease us with new or returning names and what will be next.

 

[thebarber]

A hell of a lot of what Punk said is very similar to complaints Bret Hart, Chris Jericho, Tito Santana have made in their books over the past few years. Noting all books were not WWE releases also, these guys were free to speak their minds. Austin himself even spoke of how he understood how guys are just a cog in the engine, when one breakls down, Vince tosses and creates a new cog, or superstar.
Punk's always come across as a staright shooter and to the point, and alot of what he says makes sense to the keen fan. I mean one had to wonder why Punk went form a 434 day title reign, to putting over 3 part timers at the three biggest ppvs of the year in 2013 with zero follow up. 2014 looked more of the same, and butchering the Bryan storyline in the process. Punk leaving at least foced WWE to make the right call with Mania 30.
Punk says he is done with wrestling, but I suspect in a couple of years he will look for a one shot pay day that the other part timers get. Vince appears to like Punk, Helmsley is the problem, as he has been for many guys who he is jealous of/fearful of losing spots to. And HHH to think he could touch Punk.... Punk would tear him a new ******** in a shoot.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

That is not what I said if you bothered to read the post. And no I didn't say they were dying young because they didn't have time to rest. What I said was they don't have time to have injuries that they incur heal.

Look at Reigns, he worked with a hernia, and in his own words, said he was "trying to gut it out", that's the kind of environment that has been created today. When wrestler's are working injured it's not a good thing. I understand they have to do it on occasion, but surely with the roster the size that it is, and NXT guys waiting in the wings, injured wrestlers should have time off to heal. It's not like they can't fill a card if one or two goes down.

The fact is that most wrestlers in wwe think that if they are in a upper mid card spot and they get injured, they might lose they're spot and be replace by somebody else. So they don't tell anybody they are injured and keep working. Most of the time, the doctors as to stop them and talk them into getting checked out, some like roman reigns and Daniel Bryan listen to them and some like punk don't and then complain about it. In the end it's always been the decision of the wrestlers if they wanted to take time off to heel or not some take the chance and take time off and hope they get their spot back when they come back and other gamble their health to not lose their spot.

 

[anakin322]

I am new to posting, in fact this is my first post, but I am going to go against the grain and play devil's advocate for the moment. First off, I have been a fan of CM Punk since his ECW days. I have never followed the Independent's, had heard CM Punk's name but never knew much about him until he came to WWE. His rise from 2007-2013 was awesome and he became on of my favorite wrestlers. However, I have some problems with what he says in his interview.

Firstly, he has stated numerous times, including in his interview, that Vince and HHH do not know what is best for business. However, we forget that Vince McMahon has taken WWE from a regional promotion to essentially a monopoly, earning more money in a single year than most promotions made during their entire lifetime. If there is one thing Vince knows, it is what is best for business and he has proven that repeatedly throughout the last 35 years or so. Every time somebody leaves the WWE they blame Vince for not using him appropriately and not knowing what is best.

The bottom line is CM Punk was worried about CM Punk, which is OK, as he says he is an independent contractor and needs to look out for his own interests. However, Vince McMahon, rightfully so, is going to worry about his business more than an individual "contractor." For every wrestler I have heard state that the company tried to make them work injured, I have heard 5 report that Vince immediately took them off the road due to injury. Remember Shawn Michaels "Losing his smile" because he told Vince he had a devastating knee injury? Vince does not MAKE anybody wrestle at anytime! Does he want his top moneymakers to wrestle as often as possible with as few breaks as possible? Of course! Why wouldn't he, they're making him money? At the same time, should the top moneymakers want to wrestle as often as they can with as few of breaks as possible? Absolutely, if they are not on TV they are no longer the top moneymaker. Just ask Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns! When you're not on TV, you're not making money. It's as simple as that.

Now to CM Punk reporting that HHH did not do what was best for business in 2011, I have a counter argument to that. HHH had just lost to Taker at WrestleMania 27 and the build was already in place for a rematch at WrestleMania 28. CM Punk was his first match and it had occurred several months after WrestleMania. Punk had just gone over Cena TWICE in the previous two pay-per-views, so he was hardly being buried. HHH needed some momentum so that, come WrestleMania season, he could be seen as a legitimate threat for the Undertaker. Look at the remainder of the year, HHH jobbed out to Miz/Truth in back-to-back months and got beat up by Kevin Nash multiple times before finally going over in the December Pay-per-view. Had HHH lost to Punk clean, how could he have been sold as a legitimate threat to Taker in March? When you watch the match, it certainly does not bury Punk, as Punk kicked out of the pedigree and only lost after multiple episodes of outside interference. I don't feel that it is fair to say that HHH "buried" Punk in that feud, he simply knew that his in-ring time was limited and he needed some momentum of his own in order to properly sell the build up to Wrestlemania 28. Does anyone remember the build for WrestleMania 30 and how people were originally not interested in Brock Vs. Taker because Brock had jobbed so many times over the previous 2 years they did not see him as a legitimate threat? CM Punk was a full-time, young wrestler who had plenty of time to build momentum. In fact, 2 short months after losing to HHH he began his WWE Championship reign.

The same argument can be made for CM Punk losing to Brock Lesnar. They were beginning to build for Taker Vs. Lesnar at WM 30. People were already complaining about Lesnar not being a legitimate threat because he had lost so many times. If you saw that match, it certainly did not bury CM Punk, it made him look stronger than perhaps even the WWE title reign did. He went toe-to-toe with the Beast and only lost due to outside interference. He's a full time wrestler and "the best in the world," he has a lot of time to regain momentum. In fact, he did not lose another pay-per-view match for the rest of the year and nearly won the Royal Rumble. He was eliminated due to, you guessed it, outside interference. I'm noticing a trend to whenever Punk lost over the previous 2 1/2 years prior to his leaving. In fact, the only clean "jobs" I can recall Punk doing were to Rock at Elimination Chamber 2013, Cena on Raw leading to WrestleMania 29, and Taker at WrestleMania. Remember that Shawn Michaels, my personal choice for best wrestler of all time, lost more matches than he won and was still always considered a legitimate threat when put in the main event spot because he knew how to stay over even when losing. CM Punk had that same talent, but became bitter at having to use it.

Moving on, CM Punk also felt it was bad for business for him to lose to the Rock. Well, hindsight being 20/20, business did not improve for WrestleMania 29 as well as I'm sure WWE hoped. However, think about this logically. You've got one of the top stars in Hollywood with a HUGE movie (Fast 6) getting ready to be released and he is making the rounds on talk shows and TV programs to promote the movie. Why not take the opportunity for free publicity by having him announced as WWE Champion and promoting his title defense at WrestleMania? Yes, the buy-rate dropped for WrestleMania 29 compared to 28, but it was still higher than most other Wrestlemanias. And remember, the main event was a rematch with an obvious ending so for the buy-rate to be as high as it was shows how much of a draw the Rock was. This is not to say that CM Punk was not the best at the time, but he simply was not as big of a draw as the Rock. Yes, I agree that for wrestling storyline and buildup, it would have been a much better build to have CM Punk Vs. Undertaker in "streak vs streak," and would've made it much more believable that Punk could win the match. However, I can certainly understand, and most of you should also, why the WWE chose to do things the way that they did.

Finally, Punk complained that he did not NEED to work with HHH at WrestleMania, even though he was going to go over. For somebody who complained about every time he needed to do a job to a part-timer, he sure ran quickly once he found out the part-timer was going to job to HIM. Realistically tell me that a match with HHH at WrestleMania would not have been good for CM Punk at that stage of his career. HHH made Daniel Bryan look like a star in their match, and Bryan went on to win the title later that night. If not for Bryan's injury I believe that would have been the "Daniel Bryan Era" beginning, much like the "Austin Era" began at WrestleMania 14. That could have been CM Punk in that spot, but he decided he did not want to work with HHH because his feelings were hurt that HHH made him lose in 2011!!! Dude! He's returning the favor at one of the biggest shows of the year, what the heck do you have to complain about?!?!

Sorry for the rant but am getting tired of reading about people burying WWE and praising CM Punk for essentially walking out on his job and giving every fan of his the finger in the process. I know CM Punk believes that he would be as good as he was without the fans and I believe that may be true, however he would not have been as successful without the fans. Bottom line is, no matter how good you are if the fans aren't interested, you're not going to be a star. Anyone remember Chris Candido? Excellent in-ring competitor and pretty decent talker also, but could not get the fans to give a crap about him and, thus, never amounted to anything more than a jobber. If the fans did not care about Punk, he never would have amounted to half of what he became, so to simply walk out and refuse to speak for several months is completely unacceptable.

What do you all think?

 

[Psykohurricane55]

I am new to posting, in fact this is my first post, but I am going to go against the grain and play devil's advocate for the moment. First off, I have been a fan of CM Punk since his ECW days. I have never followed the Independent's, had heard CM Punk's name but never knew much about him until he came to WWE. His rise from 2007-2013 was awesome and he became on of my favorite wrestlers. However, I have some problems with what he says in his interview.

Firstly, he has stated numerous times, including in his interview, that Vince and HHH do not know what is best for business. However, we forget that Vince McMahon has taken WWE from a regional promotion to essentially a monopoly, earning more money in a single year than most promotions made during their entire lifetime. If there is one thing Vince knows, it is what is best for business and he has proven that repeatedly throughout the last 35 years or so. Every time somebody leaves the WWE they blame Vince for not using him appropriately and not knowing what is best.

The bottom line is CM Punk was worried about CM Punk, which is OK, as he says he is an independent contractor and needs to look out for his own interests. However, Vince McMahon, rightfully so, is going to worry about his business more than an individual "contractor." For every wrestler I have heard state that the company tried to make them work injured, I have heard 5 report that Vince immediately took them off the road due to injury. Remember Shawn Michaels "Losing his smile" because he told Vince he had a devastating knee injury? Vince does not MAKE anybody wrestle at anytime! Does he want his top moneymakers to wrestle as often as possible with as few breaks as possible? Of course! Why wouldn't he, they're making him money? At the same time, should the top moneymakers want to wrestle as often as they can with as few of breaks as possible? Absolutely, if they are not on TV they are no longer the top moneymaker. Just ask Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns! When you're not on TV, you're not making money. It's as simple as that.

Now to CM Punk reporting that HHH did not do what was best for business in 2011, I have a counter argument to that. HHH had just lost to Taker at WrestleMania 27 and the build was already in place for a rematch at WrestleMania 28. CM Punk was his first match and it had occurred several months after WrestleMania. Punk had just gone over Cena TWICE in the previous two pay-per-views, so he was hardly being buried. HHH needed some momentum so that, come WrestleMania season, he could be seen as a legitimate threat for the Undertaker. Look at the remainder of the year, HHH jobbed out to Miz/Truth in back-to-back months and got beat up by Kevin Nash multiple times before finally going over in the December Pay-per-view. Had HHH lost to Punk clean, how could he have been sold as a legitimate threat to Taker in March? When you watch the match, it certainly does not bury Punk, as Punk kicked out of the pedigree and only lost after multiple episodes of outside interference. I don't feel that it is fair to say that HHH "buried" Punk in that feud, he simply knew that his in-ring time was limited and he needed some momentum of his own in order to properly sell the build up to Wrestlemania 28. Does anyone remember the build for WrestleMania 30 and how people were originally not interested in Brock Vs. Taker because Brock had jobbed so many times over the previous 2 years they did not see him as a legitimate threat? CM Punk was a full-time, young wrestler who had plenty of time to build momentum. In fact, 2 short months after losing to HHH he began his WWE Championship reign.

The same argument can be made for CM Punk losing to Brock Lesnar. They were beginning to build for Taker Vs. Lesnar at WM 30. People were already complaining about Lesnar not being a legitimate threat because he had lost so many times. If you saw that match, it certainly did not bury CM Punk, it made him look stronger than perhaps even the WWE title reign did. He went toe-to-toe with the Beast and only lost due to outside interference. He's a full time wrestler and "the best in the world," he has a lot of time to regain momentum. In fact, he did not lose another pay-per-view match for the rest of the year and nearly won the Royal Rumble. He was eliminated due to, you guessed it, outside interference. I'm noticing a trend to whenever Punk lost over the previous 2 1/2 years prior to his leaving. In fact, the only clean "jobs" I can recall Punk doing were to Rock at Elimination Chamber 2013, Cena on Raw leading to WrestleMania 29, and Taker at WrestleMania. Remember that Shawn Michaels, my personal choice for best wrestler of all time, lost more matches than he won and was still always considered a legitimate threat when put in the main event spot because he knew how to stay over even when losing. CM Punk had that same talent, but became bitter at having to use it.

Moving on, CM Punk also felt it was bad for business for him to lose to the Rock. Well, hindsight being 20/20, business did not improve for WrestleMania 29 as well as I'm sure WWE hoped. However, think about this logically. You've got one of the top stars in Hollywood with a HUGE movie (Fast 6) getting ready to be released and he is making the rounds on talk shows and TV programs to promote the movie. Why not take the opportunity for free publicity by having him announced as WWE Champion and promoting his title defense at WrestleMania? Yes, the buy-rate dropped for WrestleMania 29 compared to 28, but it was still higher than most other Wrestlemanias. And remember, the main event was a rematch with an obvious ending so for the buy-rate to be as high as it was shows how much of a draw the Rock was. This is not to say that CM Punk was not the best at the time, but he simply was not as big of a draw as the Rock. Yes, I agree that for wrestling storyline and buildup, it would have been a much better build to have CM Punk Vs. Undertaker in "streak vs streak," and would've made it much more believable that Punk could win the match. However, I can certainly understand, and most of you should also, why the WWE chose to do things the way that they did.

Finally, Punk complained that he did not NEED to work with HHH at WrestleMania, even though he was going to go over. For somebody who complained about every time he needed to do a job to a part-timer, he sure ran quickly once he found out the part-timer was going to job to HIM. Realistically tell me that a match with HHH at WrestleMania would not have been good for CM Punk at that stage of his career. HHH made Daniel Bryan look like a star in their match, and Bryan went on to win the title later that night. If not for Bryan's injury I believe that would have been the "Daniel Bryan Era" beginning, much like the "Austin Era" began at WrestleMania 14. That could have been CM Punk in that spot, but he decided he did not want to work with HHH because his feelings were hurt that HHH made him lose in 2011!!! Dude! He's returning the favor at one of the biggest shows of the year, what the heck do you have to complain about?!?!

Sorry for the rant but am getting tired of reading about people burying WWE and praising CM Punk for essentially walking out on his job and giving every fan of his the finger in the process. I know CM Punk believes that he would be as good as he was without the fans and I believe that may be true, however he would not have been as successful without the fans. Bottom line is, no matter how good you are if the fans aren't interested, you're not going to be a star. Anyone remember Chris Candido? Excellent in-ring competitor and pretty decent talker also, but could not get the fans to give a crap about him and, thus, never amounted to anything more than a jobber. If the fans did not care about Punk, he never would have amounted to half of what he became, so to simply walk out and refuse to speak for several months is completely unacceptable.

What do you all think?

Awesome post I completely agree with you, I completely forgot about some of this stuff you mention but when you look at it from that perpective, it makes sense. Punk doesn't have anything to conplaint about and I'm sure he did this because fans were starting to forget about him.

 

[The Mattitude Era]

I am new to posting, in fact this is my first post, but I am going to go against the grain and play devil's advocate for the moment. First off, I have been a fan of CM Punk since his ECW days. I have never followed the Independent's, had heard CM Punk's name but never knew much about him until he came to WWE. His rise from 2007-2013 was awesome and he became on of my favorite wrestlers. However, I have some problems with what he says in his interview.

Firstly, he has stated numerous times, including in his interview, that Vince and HHH do not know what is best for business. However, we forget that Vince McMahon has taken WWE from a regional promotion to essentially a monopoly, earning more money in a single year than most promotions made during their entire lifetime. If there is one thing Vince knows, it is what is best for business and he has proven that repeatedly throughout the last 35 years or so. Every time somebody leaves the WWE they blame Vince for not using him appropriately and not knowing what is best.

The bottom line is CM Punk was worried about CM Punk, which is OK, as he says he is an independent contractor and needs to look out for his own interests. However, Vince McMahon, rightfully so, is going to worry about his business more than an individual "contractor." For every wrestler I have heard state that the company tried to make them work injured, I have heard 5 report that Vince immediately took them off the road due to injury. Remember Shawn Michaels "Losing his smile" because he told Vince he had a devastating knee injury? Vince does not MAKE anybody wrestle at anytime! Does he want his top moneymakers to wrestle as often as possible with as few breaks as possible? Of course! Why wouldn't he, they're making him money? At the same time, should the top moneymakers want to wrestle as often as they can with as few of breaks as possible? Absolutely, if they are not on TV they are no longer the top moneymaker. Just ask Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns! When you're not on TV, you're not making money. It's as simple as that.

Now to CM Punk reporting that HHH did not do what was best for business in 2011, I have a counter argument to that. HHH had just lost to Taker at WrestleMania 27 and the build was already in place for a rematch at WrestleMania 28. CM Punk was his first match and it had occurred several months after WrestleMania. Punk had just gone over Cena TWICE in the previous two pay-per-views, so he was hardly being buried. HHH needed some momentum so that, come WrestleMania season, he could be seen as a legitimate threat for the Undertaker. Look at the remainder of the year, HHH jobbed out to Miz/Truth in back-to-back months and got beat up by Kevin Nash multiple times before finally going over in the December Pay-per-view. Had HHH lost to Punk clean, how could he have been sold as a legitimate threat to Taker in March? When you watch the match, it certainly does not bury Punk, as Punk kicked out of the pedigree and only lost after multiple episodes of outside interference. I don't feel that it is fair to say that HHH "buried" Punk in that feud, he simply knew that his in-ring time was limited and he needed some momentum of his own in order to properly sell the build up to Wrestlemania 28. Does anyone remember the build for WrestleMania 30 and how people were originally not interested in Brock Vs. Taker because Brock had jobbed so many times over the previous 2 years they did not see him as a legitimate threat? CM Punk was a full-time, young wrestler who had plenty of time to build momentum. In fact, 2 short months after losing to HHH he began his WWE Championship reign.

The same argument can be made for CM Punk losing to Brock Lesnar. They were beginning to build for Taker Vs. Lesnar at WM 30. People were already complaining about Lesnar not being a legitimate threat because he had lost so many times. If you saw that match, it certainly did not bury CM Punk, it made him look stronger than perhaps even the WWE title reign did. He went toe-to-toe with the Beast and only lost due to outside interference. He's a full time wrestler and "the best in the world," he has a lot of time to regain momentum. In fact, he did not lose another pay-per-view match for the rest of the year and nearly won the Royal Rumble. He was eliminated due to, you guessed it, outside interference. I'm noticing a trend to whenever Punk lost over the previous 2 1/2 years prior to his leaving. In fact, the only clean "jobs" I can recall Punk doing were to Rock at Elimination Chamber 2013, Cena on Raw leading to WrestleMania 29, and Taker at WrestleMania. Remember that Shawn Michaels, my personal choice for best wrestler of all time, lost more matches than he won and was still always considered a legitimate threat when put in the main event spot because he knew how to stay over even when losing. CM Punk had that same talent, but became bitter at having to use it.

Moving on, CM Punk also felt it was bad for business for him to lose to the Rock. Well, hindsight being 20/20, business did not improve for WrestleMania 29 as well as I'm sure WWE hoped. However, think about this logically. You've got one of the top stars in Hollywood with a HUGE movie (Fast 6) getting ready to be released and he is making the rounds on talk shows and TV programs to promote the movie. Why not take the opportunity for free publicity by having him announced as WWE Champion and promoting his title defense at WrestleMania? Yes, the buy-rate dropped for WrestleMania 29 compared to 28, but it was still higher than most other Wrestlemanias. And remember, the main event was a rematch with an obvious ending so for the buy-rate to be as high as it was shows how much of a draw the Rock was. This is not to say that CM Punk was not the best at the time, but he simply was not as big of a draw as the Rock. Yes, I agree that for wrestling storyline and buildup, it would have been a much better build to have CM Punk Vs. Undertaker in "streak vs streak," and would've made it much more believable that Punk could win the match. However, I can certainly understand, and most of you should also, why the WWE chose to do things the way that they did.

Finally, Punk complained that he did not NEED to work with HHH at WrestleMania, even though he was going to go over. For somebody who complained about every time he needed to do a job to a part-timer, he sure ran quickly once he found out the part-timer was going to job to HIM. Realistically tell me that a match with HHH at WrestleMania would not have been good for CM Punk at that stage of his career. HHH made Daniel Bryan look like a star in their match, and Bryan went on to win the title later that night. If not for Bryan's injury I believe that would have been the "Daniel Bryan Era" beginning, much like the "Austin Era" began at WrestleMania 14. That could have been CM Punk in that spot, but he decided he did not want to work with HHH because his feelings were hurt that HHH made him lose in 2011!!! Dude! He's returning the favor at one of the biggest shows of the year, what the heck do you have to complain about?!?!

Sorry for the rant but am getting tired of reading about people burying WWE and praising CM Punk for essentially walking out on his job and giving every fan of his the finger in the process. I know CM Punk believes that he would be as good as he was without the fans and I believe that may be true, however he would not have been as successful without the fans. Bottom line is, no matter how good you are if the fans aren't interested, you're not going to be a star. Anyone remember Chris Candido? Excellent in-ring competitor and pretty decent talker also, but could not get the fans to give a crap about him and, thus, never amounted to anything more than a jobber. If the fans did not care about Punk, he never would have amounted to half of what he became, so to simply walk out and refuse to speak for several months is completely unacceptable.

What do you all think?

Well said. Agree with pretty much everything. After reading that especially, I really don't think Punk has a legit gripe as far as booking is concerned. That said, the stuff about his medical problems going untreated is enough to walk out, and good for him for not putting up with the bullshit doctor and Vince making/pressuring him to come back prematurely after injury. But, as your post eloquently states, on the booking side of things, Punk is completely forgetting that there are other wrestlers that need to come out of a match or feud looking strong.

However, THAT said, on a slightly unrelated note, I still think a majority of wrestlers and fans overrate the importance of "going over" in a match. I say again and again that wins and losses really don't matter. Of course, there are instances where, of course, it matters. But, to be honest, I'm a huge wrestling fan, but I would not have remembered who won the Triple H/Cm Punk 2011 match. I remember them facing each other at Night of Champions, but I could not tell you how it ended.

In conclusion, I agree with anakin and Punk really doesn't have a legit gripe about how he was booked. But, he states that the main reason he left was his health. And to that point, I think he's a 100% in the right to not have to put up with doctors and bosses not caring about his health.