CM Punk Has Got To Go

The Facts will add up and sooner rather than later, You people will have to face them. So each week, I will blast the numbers, and as long as punk is champ, I will hold him accountable for the numbers. Plain as day.

So what happens if the numbers stay the same or, god forbide, get better? By your one-dimensional scale of success, all those "marks" you love to ridicule will be proven 100% right subjectively and objectively about Punk, whilst you will look like a complete idiot. Are you going to come up with an argument that says that Punk has nothing to do with the rise in ratings?

Painting yourself into a corner over something as hard to predict and prone to outside influences as television ratings is never a clever thing to do.
 
The reason the match did not draw is not because it was a cm punk match. The reason the match didn't draw is because last weeks raw other than the cena/piper segment and the title match was very lackluster. Let's face it, it was a raw that is just after a ppv, that is. not building up toward anything for the next ppv yet. It was a blowoff raw. And blowoff raws get blowoff ratings. It has nothing to do with people not liking cm punk. It has everything to do with nothting happening that matters. That's what last weeks raw was. It didn't matter. Please learn something before you type nonsense into my world.
 
The reason the match did not draw is not because it was a cm punk match. The reason the match didn't draw is because last weeks raw other than the cena/piper segment and the title match was very lackluster. Let's face it, it was a raw that is just after a ppv, that is. not building up toward anything for the next ppv yet. It was a blowoff raw. And blowoff raws get blowoff ratings. It has nothing to do with people not liking cm punk. It has everything to do with nothting happening that matters. That's what last weeks raw was. It didn't matter. Please learn something before you type nonsense into my world.
 
The reason the match did not draw is not because it was a cm punk match. The reason the match didn't draw is because last weeks raw other than the cena/piper segment and the title match was very lackluster. Let's face it, it was a raw that is just after a ppv, that is. not building up toward anything for the next ppv yet. It was a blowoff raw. And blowoff raws get blowoff ratings. It has nothing to do with people not liking cm punk. It has everything to do with nothting happening that matters. That's what last weeks raw was. It didn't matter. Please learn something before you type nonsense into my world.
 
So what happens if the numbers stay the same or, god forbide, get better? By your one-dimensional scale of success, all those "marks" you love to ridicule will be proven 100% right subjectively and objectively about Punk, whilst you will look like a complete idiot. Are you going to come up with an argument that says that Punk has nothing to do with the rise in ratings?

Painting yourself into a corner over something as hard to predict and prone to outside influences as television ratings is never a clever thing to do.

If the only increases we see are ROCK-RELATED, Then i will be proven right. It's a very clevery thing to paint you guys into a corner of saying Punk will bring in new business, compared to my analysis that any increase will be ROCK-related. Those facts will bear out, and it's very very very safe to assume.
 
I invest my time by watching, my dollars by buying PPV's, and more dollars for Events when they come to the Dallas area. And even more dollars when buying my nephew Cena merchandise.

I am very invested in the WWE and I will allways support my arguments on "facts", not subjective statements on how I peronaly feel. Thats ******ed, How I personaly feel doesnt matter and it doesnt prove anything. How-ever, when i point out that WWE business isnt getting bettter with punk carrying it, All I am saying is that this thing will run it's course and we'll be on another hunt for someone who can usher in a new era, or atleast increase business at a meaningfull margin. Like: 500,000 new viewers (ave.)/ .25 increase in PPV B/R AVE. and a plus 2,000 in attendance average. Those are very small standards to look for in someone claiming to be "the best in the world". When the Rock says it, he can back it up with facts. When Punk says it, it looks ******ed. I mean, if I can picture myself beating up this guy in a fight.......

This has got to be the most intelligent thing you have said thus far. I was actually really impressed when reading through this, and it swayed me a whole lot more than your unintelligible rants that basically said the same thing every single time... A couple of things I will applaud you on:

1) Sticking to your convictions in the face of so much adversity. I still think this is as much arrogance as it is bravery, but...bravo.
2) You've managed to bring together almost all of the reputable posters currently active in Wrestlezone to debate a single topic. You've also managed to heat-up most of them, and draw in some of the "legends" that have been around for quite awhile. So if nothing else, and even if it's for an incredible stupid reason, you accomplished that.
3) You have an opinion...and are trying to back it up by facts. I just disagree with you on what those facts actually mean.

On the matter of WWE not being in the t-shirt business, this is exactly right. The product that entertains us week after week should be the primary focus. This should be purely a matter of "are you entertained by CM Punk". However, you yourself started out on this witch hunt with talk of ratings, ticket sales, and half-empty arenas. You broke that wall down, so don't hide behind the crumbling pieces when you're presented with counter-facts.

On the matter of Punk not looking like a guy who can "kick somebody's ass", I kind of agree with you as well. He is a "skinny fatass" if I've ever seen one (I don't think I've ever actually seen one, for the record...). But I'll tell you what: while he looks like a guy Brock Lesnar could consume after a morning jog, I'd believe he could beat just about anybody in a wrestling match. And that is factor that contributes to him being an interesting character. He's not the same cookie-cutter guy that can get in there and brawl to win matches... He has to be clever. He has to be intelligent. And above all, he has to wrestle. Few people do at this point in the industry... Here's some pictures of a few guys who never looked like they could kick my ass, but had some mild success in pro wrestling:

CM-Punk.jpg
macho-man-51.jpg
ricflair.jpg
tumblr_lm8h7xJhL01qgbtl9.jpg
jericho_posed.jpg
14.jpg

On the matter of Punk not selling out arenas...I wouldn't really know, nor does it effect me. I live in Chicago, so every single wrestling event that comes through here is sold out, no matter who is champion or what is going on storyline-wise. Maybe the Universe just needs a better breed of fan?

And finally back to the topic of ratings, and Punk not drawing them... I see your facts, and at this point I think the best thing we can do is wait another 4-6 months and re-have this conversation. If the WWE continues to fall in ratings, viewers, and live attendance...then we can talk. But he just won the damn title two weeks ago! And before that you can't tell me the show was centered around him! It was for a very short amount of time before MITB, and for a short time before SummerSlam. But there was also a lot of other stuff going on that could be a contributing factor. All I'm saying is, for the 4th time now...correlation does not prove causation. Punk is working against half a decade of John Cena on top. You're weighing of data up against a few months at MOST. Here's what was really on the table in the last few months:

Capitol Punishment: John Cena vs. R-Truth for the WWE Championship... Really? Need I say more? CM Punk was facing Rey Mysterio in what ended up being a very good match, albeit we had seen it a dozen time already. Spotlight clearly not on CM Punk, therefore ratings a non-factor in this case.

Money in the Bank: CM Punk was on top, going against John Cena to win the WWE title in Chicago. During that month there was more hype, and more excitement than there has been in years. You don't have to like, but you should see that it was kind of a big deal... This is probably where you can start counting if you're pinning the ratings to him. At the same time, Cena and Vince were taking up some pretty heavy spotlight, and Punk wasn't even around for one of the weeks leading up to it.

SummerSlam: CM Punk defeated John Cena to become the Undisputed (not really) WWE Champion. Alberto del Rio cashed in to become the new WWE Champion. Punk returned and had a few weeks back before the PPV, but before that Cena was again the focus for awhile. I'd say you can probably split the blame and focus about 50/50 in this case.

Night of Champions: John Cena defeated Alberto del Rio to win the WWE Championship. Triple H defeated CM Punk... Here's another period where Punk was on top, even though his match wasn't for the title. But again, Triple H is a huge, imposing guy. You can't place all the credit on Punk here either, because you have Cena and ADR in the title picture, plus all the convolution with Nash, the walk-out, etc.

Hell in a Cell: Alberto del Rio defeated John Cena and CM Punk to win the WWE Championship. With only a couple weeks of build, I don't think Punk cut a single promo. He was just thrown in that match, and took a lot of bumps from beginning to end.

Vengeance: Alberto del Rio defeated John Cena to retain the WWE Championship. Earlier in the evening CM Punk and Triple H lost to Miz and R-Truth. Again, the focus is being split and John Cena is still on top.

Survivor Series: John Cena and the Rock defeated Miz and Truth. CM Punk defeated Alberto del Rio minutes before to become the WWE Champion. If you really think the focus was on Punk here...you're a moron.

So that was the last six or so months of WWE programming... CM Punk was in the spotlight for a little while, and intermittently throughout, and is right now as well. So yeah, if there really is this steady decline in sales and ratings over the last six months, than some of the blame could probably go on Punk's shoulders. But you also have Cena to consider. Triple H to consider. You have the JOHN LAURINAITIS AND ALBERTO DEL RIO TO CONSIDER!!! Like I said, wait until this time next year even, and we'll have this discussion again. You're being incredibly impatient, and it isn't even realistic at this point to try and blame Punk for ANYTHING.

And to counter the impending "Well, if Punk was so good he should have INCREASED the ratings" statement, changes like that don't happen over night, no matter how good you are. If the Rock and Mick Foley can only raise Raw viewership by a small percentage, why are you expecting Punk to perform miracles? The man's not God, but he's damn good at what he does.

In the end, hang your ratings, hang the viewership, and fuck the casual fans. It's all about being entertained, and making the best product possible. Just because you buy your nephew a few t-shirts doesn't entitle you to scrutinize every financial aspect the product has to offer. When I buy a new pair of pants, I don't immediately start criticizing the company's financial status if they didn't fit me right or are just plain uncomfortable. I would wash them, give them time to adjust to me, and if...if in time they were still crappy pants, I'd have the right as a knowledgeable consumer to review the quality of the pants. That in NO WAY entitles me to review the quality of the pants sales records...
 
All i have to say after reading this is HAHAHAHAHAHA. This is the biggest joke of a thread going. Oh wait we want Cena to hold the title again, boring. At least this is different. And Punk is the best professional wrestler in the world. God he made Cena look good!! Thats something not many people could do!.

Punk is the future of professional wrestling.
 
holding one man accountable is fucking ridiculous. what about the rest of WWE's product. the mid card, tag team, and divas division is practically non existent. we have this boring interim gm storyline. this triple h and kevin nash storyline is moving at a painfully slow pace. right now cena and miz seem to have no clear direction right now. wwe refuses to make zack ryder a main stay at raw despite the fans constant chanting. to be honest cm punk seems to be the only thing wwe is doing right.

i like how you say he needs to go but yet provide no solution. if he is not to be champion at wm then who should the wm wwe title match should be then.

you also want to speak about statistics and numbers, well, statistically wwe is at their worst during the first half of the decade. this was the case from about 91-92 and they didnt hit their stride till about 96. 2001 - 2005 was another weak period for wwe and yet again didnt hit their stride till 2006.

it doesnt matter who the face of the company is. cm punk cant carry a 2 hour show and neither could stone cold. during stone cold's time you also had the rock, triple h, undertaker, mankind coming up to main event status. you had an excellent tag team division with edge and christian, the hardy boyz, dudley boyz, a.p.a to name a few, and the mid card was great with the likes of jericho, benoit, guerrero, kane, and kurt angle. there is so much more examples of how wwe just excelled during the years of 96-2000, but things started going downhill with the purchase of wcw in 01 and it was a slow climb to prominence by 06. during those years it was no one man's fault but a multitude of issues.

i certainly wouldnt blame bret hart back in the early 90's for the slow decline of wwf. in early 2000's-2005 raw had nothing going on. triple h was champion most of that period but i wouldnt blame triple h for the decline of the wwe, especially when smackdown was actually great.

the original ecw wasnt great because of 1 person, but was great because of many people as well as the quality of the product. wcw rose to prominence for a few years because again not just 1 person, but hogan, nash, and scott hall forming the nwo. you also had many others who rose to stardom shortly after.

placing blame and accountability on one performer is ludicrous. everything that the wwe is doing is certainly not at the behest of cm punk. cm punk is not in charge of any decision making wwe does and thats a fact.

as far as cody rhodes goes, he is good but still has a lot to improve upon. the fact you feel he is god like or some crap is sad, especially when you feel he cant carry a show. how can he be gods gift to wrestling if he cant carry a show. i hold dolph ziggler in much higher regard. he is great on the mic and his skills are on point and yet he still feels he can be much better. he has had some of the best matches the last few weeks as well as working double duty in the last couple ppvs.
 
Mike "The Kid" Killam

It's very hard to keep up with each post and every point for a counter-point, But you are a model poster. You disagree by giving a worthy effort at truley explaining why you disagree. Although I feel the facts will win me out, as i am on the side of facts, B/C you cant have your own, But i will never give someone a bad rep or bad reply b/c I disagree. I give my best to those who are interested in this debate and you are one i truley will give my best to in arguing my point.

You have successfully, through your clever and intelligent response, made me see things in your prespective.

How-ever I stand 100% by my convictions and will never abandon my principle argument as I feel that the facts will see me through the day. BTW, I saved my good rep for you, even though we disagree on the principles of this equation. My Rep has taken quite a beating but my convictions on where i stand and the reasons behind it, our 100% intact.
 
If the only increases we see are ROCK-RELATED, Then i will be proven right. It's a very clevery thing to paint you guys into a corner of saying Punk will bring in new business, compared to my analysis that any increase will be ROCK-related. Those facts will bear out, and it's very very very safe to assume.

All you would actually be proven right about is that CM Punk is not the Rock when it comes to drawing power; a fact that is already indisputable and that means next to nothing as there are only a select few wrestling legends have ever been able to match or surpass the drawing power of the Great One.

If we are just going to throw away any fresh face purely because of one decrease in ratings that cannot be attributed to him being the champion then the wrestling business is in graver trouble than anyone thought.
 
If the OP's not buying what CM Punk is selling, I can understand. After all, every wrestler, without exception, isn't going to be over with everyone. That's just simply how it is.

The fact is, however, that CM Punk is over with the vast majority of WWE viewers. Punk always gets big responses from the crowds, his merchendise sells through the roof and he consistently delivers on the mic & inside the ring.

I'm not overly surprised that Punk's match against Alberto Del Rio wasn't a major draw. At the same time, Raw is a show that has major competition of Monday nights, especially during the last 3 or 4 months of the year. As far as Punk's drawing ability goes, it's far too soon to say that he isn't a draw as WWE Champion. It's only been a couple of weeks since Punk's reign as WWE Champion started, and it's his first WWE Championship run in which he's the overall center of attention. They don't have him in the process of "leaving" the WWE or feuding with Triple H over philosophical differences in wrestling. There's also a possibility that some people just aren't all that interested in CM Punk facing Alberto Del Rio. I like Del Rio, I think he's a talented guy inside the ring and he has his moments on the mic, but I don't think he's successfully connected with fans as a main eventer since coming to Raw and I think the way WWE has handled his character does have at least something to do with that.

When it comes to be the top guy in WWE as far as the main event picture goes, CM Punk is, in some ways, brand new to the scene. Punk is a talented guy that is making money for WWE so I'm gonna give him longer than a few weeks and a single title defense before declaring that Punk shouldn't be where he is.
 
All you would actually be proven right about is that CM Punk is not the Rock when it comes to drawing power; a fact that is already indisputable and that means next to nothing as there are only a select few wrestling legends have ever been able to match or surpass the drawing power of the Great One.

If we are just going to throw away any fresh face purely because of one decrease in ratings that cannot be attributed to him being the champion then the wrestling business is in graver trouble than anyone thought.

NO! what I will be proving is that The key indicators for a business-successfull champ, will remain stagnent. If Punk keeps the Financial indicators stagnent, I will be proven right.

500,000 new viewer in NON Rock related shows
.25 net increase in NON Rock related PPV buys
20% increase in live attendance in non-rock-related events

Can he do those things? If so, he will be ushering in sucess;
If not, He'll be another stagnent champ that did not have any "coat tails".
 
HAHAHAHAHA I DIDNT EVEN READ ANY THREADS ONLY THE HEADLINE....THIS IS THE MOST REDICULOUS THOUGHT OR STATEMENT EVER MADE IN ONE OF THESE FORUMS...WORSE THAN WHAT IF THE 2/2/98 NITROS ENDING WENT DIFFERENT?....ABSOLUTELY BAFFLING...YEAH THE GUY WHO'S RESURRECTED THE 20-30 YEAR OLD VIEWERSHIP AND ATTENDANCE AND LEADS THE MERCHANDISE SALES HAS TO GO....HE'S THE BEST TALKER AND WRESTLER IN THE WORLD...BEST IN THE WORLD IS REAL...WHY IS THIS EVEN BEING DISCUSSED AND ARGUED?
 
You have successfully, through your clever and intelligent response, made me see things in your prespective.
Yeah, I'm kind of a big deal. :samurai:

500,000 new viewer in NON Rock related shows
.25 net increase in NON Rock related PPV buys
20% increase in live attendance in non-rock-related events
As I've already said, we really have had very limited experience with a NON-ROCK related product since the focus has begun shifting to CM Punk. And in my estimation, you have one month -maybe two- before they start building towards WrestleMania and the Rock/Cena stuff takes off heavier than it ever has before. And IF Cena does turn heel, you know that's going to take precedence over anything Punk does. With news that the Rock is going to be at SummerSlam and next year's Survivor Series and that they are thinking about doing a 2/3 type of feud between the two...you can bet it's going to be awhile before you even get a NON-ROCK related product to test your theories. One or two months a WWE trend does not make.
 
Mike "The Kid" Killman:

Yes, through your intelligent replies, i can put my-self in your shoes, But I am 100% behind my convictions.

And the reason Punk cant be the main focus is because his broad appeal isnt there so it takes second fiddle to the real money drivers and thats cena and rock.

Take punk away from the entire picture and replace him with Orton, and everything remains neil. Punk doesnt command so much of the WWE brand that he could be dropped and business would not change. He could go to TNA and do nothng for them "competitavly".

Send Cena over there and they are competitive with WWE instantly.

Punk is like a Chris Jericoh, thats as far as he'll go.

It's not a knife in the heart for WWE Business, but he brings in no new busness...PERIOD. HE NEVER WILL. The Facts will see me through the day and when the dust settles, You all will abandon him as well. IWC support is a mile wide but an inch deep. There is no, "their", their.
 
Quick hypothetical - pick between the two scenarios:

  • Cody Rhodes wins the world heavyweight championship. The angles leading up to and resulting from this are critically huge successes. Everyone from Paul Heyman to Jim Cornette to Great White Sam to Mike "intelligent replies" Killam to ryan86 concedes that Rhodes being on top of SmackDown has produced some of the most accomplished and compelling writing, storylines and wrestling to ever come out of the professional wrestling world. Rhodes, however, is not a hit with viewers. Ratings dip slightly but noticeably during the time he's in the title picture, rising again when he drops the strap.

  • Randy Orton wins the world heavyweight championship. The angles leading up to and resulting from this are critically huge failures. Everyone from Paul Heyman to Jim Cornette to Great White Sam to Mike "walk a mile in my shoes" Killam to ryan86 complain that Orton being on top of SmackDown has produced some of the most dire and uninteresting writing, storylines and wrestling to ever come out of the professional wrestling world. Ratings go up slightly but noticeably when Orton's in the title picture, falling again when he drops the strap.

Which would you rather see unfold?
 
Watch this video in the spoiler text, and tell me what you see and hear. HERE is a link in case the video doesn't work, as that is often the case.
What I see and hear is CM Punk garnering the biggest reaction of the night, in his opponent's home town. HERE is another video of the crew in the UK, with the crowd backing CM Punk even though he was a heel at the time. And HERE is Money in the Bank...an all-star reception for an all-star entrance. I chose Raw shows and PPV events because Smackdown is often post-produced, and I didn't want the arguement that they edited in his reactions to come up. Better to be safe than sorry... Although if you want a fantastic Punk heel moment, HERE is a video at the end of his work with Jeff Hardy over the World Heavyweight Championship.

This is pretty much a supplement to Great White Sam's fantastic point made mere moments ago. If the ratings don't skyrocket, but the product is 10x more enjoyable to watch, why is this such a big deal to you? I would rather have an interesting, compelling product that doesn't draw, than a bland, cookie-cutter show that rolls in bank any day of the year! And this is still very hypothetical, because for all you know...the ratings could triple in the next year. And if that does happen, I'm willing to bet somebody will completely focus it away from CM Punk, and onto the Rock (or Cody Rhodes).

CM Punk has a the top crowd reaction now as the top face, and he had one as a top heel. And comparing him to Chris Jericho...? That would be the single greatest compliment I could ever give out! (You kind of struck-out on that one. I'm from Chicago AND Jericho is my favorite...Probably not the best anti-Punk source you could have used)

And Sam...neither of those nicknames are going to catch on, but I thank you for your valiant attempt.
 
Okay first off I just read through all 12 pages, so bare with me for a moment. I have to ask though, where is the numbers breakdown for this past monday's episode of RAW that shows people "tuned out" for the final match? :S

Secondly, you say you rely on facts only but the fact is CM Punk sells more merchandise than anyone else. I was at Madison Square Garden for Survivor Series and I tell you, I couldn't look any way and NOT see a CM Punk shirt or hat being worn. Not to mention, some of the merchandise stands sold out of Punk merch and were directing people to other stands but adding "they can't guarantee they will have any either." Also, on topic of his merchandise selling so highly...his stuff even sold out during their big Thanksgiving sale to the point for a few hours you couldn't even buy CM Punk merchandise because it was legit sold out. You might not buy merchandise for anyone "but your nephew" but selling merchandise is HUGE for WWE.

Remember how Stone Cold started out? Not a a gigantic ratings draw from the get go, he started out selling huge merchandise. You couldn't go anywhere without seeing an "Austin 3:16" shirt...so ratings a few months later picked up, WWE gave Austin the ball and he ran with it for the next few years. Could you imagine if WWE said "hey wait Austin, for the past month you have been selling more merchandise than anyone but ratings are not up so we're going to get rid of you."

...Because that is what you want WWE to do with CM Punk. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying CM Punk will outsell and get more ratings than Austin ever did but let's be honest...unless WWE gives him the ball and let's him go with it for the next say 6-9 months, how will we know? Ratings, like any other TV show...grow over time. Some of the best TV shows started out with low average ratings and then boomed into huge rating successes. It takes patience, dedication, etc. You don't start something, push it hard for a month, then clip its wings.

Also, love CM Punk or hate him...like you obviously do. There is no denying that he got the world talking about WWE. You want facts? WWE got positive media attention for the first time in ages with the whole "CM Punk leaves with WWE title" storyline. It wasn't the media reporting about a steroid scandal or a dead wrestler, it was about a hot angle. Again, if you truly do want facts....

Someone also pointed out to you that the week prior, CM Punk's segment was the high point of the show. How come you conveniently ignored that? Because it doesn't fit your silly argument that "WWE needs to get rid of CM Punk"?

Lastly, you keep saying how Punk needs to go to Smackdown because he doesn't belong on RAW. You say Orton should be given Punk's spot, right? Well, how have the Smackdown ratings been lately with Orton at the helm of the show? Are they breaking ratings records? Wait, they're not? :eek: So, how in the hell do you justify saying Orton is a better draw TODAY than Punk is? Don't go saying 2 years ago this happened, 5 years ago this happened, etc. By that logic, you can say bringing Hulk Hogan back as the top guy will outdraw everyone since back in his hay day he drew more than anyone.

Fact is, its 2011. Orton is awesome, no doubt he's over, no doubt he's a draw. It would be silly to say that he isn't any of those things. But, facts show that Smackdown isn't doing great ratings either. How come you're not blaming Orton for that? I know Henry is champion but much like Cena, Orton is always a main focal point of Smackdown. So, why is it okay for you to claim Punk should be blamed for low RAW ratings but not okay to blame Orton for low SD ratings? :S

P.S. I see you are now saying CM Punk doesn't bring in new business? How are you in a position to even say that at all? I personally know people who are tuning back into WWE just to see what CM Punk is all about. Ever heard of the phrase "Rome wasn't built in a day"? Ratings don't turn around overnight. WWE is giving different people the proverbial "ball" and as they build and push the shit out of "new" people....its still going to take a few months before people catch on to what is happening.

P.P.S. How do you think "new business" happens? How do you think WWE grows in ratings and fans? Its because of that "buzz" you always hear people talking about. Austin, Hogan, Rock, Cena, etc they all grew into wrestling success stories. Some people thought "Fuck yeah, this is awesome!" Other people heard them boasting and said "I'll check it out!" The rest as they say....is history.

=)
 
The op posted info about ratings dropping during the main event. Now I could be wrong, but with the wwe pandering to kids, and showing a tv show on what happens to be a school night, couldn't the ratings have gone down because kids were told to sleep by their parents?

Also, the argument that punk doesn't make Pay per view buy rates go up, have to stop. The economy, and ppv prices being high have a greater impact on the buy rates than punk. That, and sites where you can download the ppv's.

Also, a drop in ratings might also have to do with the fact that adults,(since lets face it, only adults should be watching wrestling) have lives, and have to go to sleep so that they can have energy for work the next day.

I can bet you that the op has not taken into consideration any of these factors, other than he doesn't like punk.
 
Great White Sam:

Those two scenarios are only in the context to box me in a black and white argument.

Those hypotheticals are assuming that is the way I veiw things. It also puts words in my mouth. And it does not stay in context with my argument.

I have never brought up my subjective feelings on "Booking". B/C if the booking is great but the ratings/attendance/buyrates dont show it; it only proves that the idea of "great booking" is in the eye of the beholder. It also shows that if you want to get beyond the core 4.5 million, you have to go with what expands it. WWE makes it's descisions on that. If Punk as champ, starts bringing in 5 million viewers every night, 20% increase in attendance, and 100,000 new ppv buys NET gain, Then regardless of how i feel about the booking, Punk will have expanded the 3 Key financial indicators and thats all the objective proof he needs.

How-ever, if business remains stagnent, it's all the proof I need to say, that he has not been sucessfull.
 
Now I could be wrong, but with the wwe pandering to kids, and showing a tv show on what happens to be a school night, couldn't the ratings have gone down because kids were told to sleep by their parents?
This week's episode of Raw was shown at the same time, on the same network, and on the same day as every episode for the past...a lot of years. There was nothing unique about this week's slot, so if that is the case, how do you account for every other week, basically ever?

Also, the argument that punk doesn't make Pay per view buy rates go up, have to stop. The economy, and ppv prices being high have a greater impact on the buy rates than punk. That, and sites where you can download the ppv's.
I don't think the economy has anything to do with PPV buys. I mean, compared to 15 years ago, certainly that can be a valid argument. But sooner or later you have to realize we've been in an "economic crisis" for long enough that's it's evened out enough to collect significant data. As for the other point, I hardly think streams and torrent sites are effecting the WWE's bottom dollar in a noticeable way. You can go on a site like Kick Ass Torrents and look at how many people have downloaded a certain file. Compared to the actual number of people who bought it, and/or will buy the DVD, and/or merch from said event...it's negligible at best.

Also, a drop in ratings might also have to do with the fact that adults,(since lets face it, only adults should be watching wrestling) have lives, and have to go to sleep so that they can have energy for work the next day.
Have adults not always had lives? Was there something about the Attitude Era that I was not aware of? Did anybody over the age of 18 suddenly just get really busy and have to go night-night right around the time where the ratings started to drop? Same as your first point...illogical.

I can bet you that the op has not taken into consideration any of these factors, other than he doesn't like punk.
I really hope he hasn't taken into account any of these factors...They're ridiculous.
 
Let's face facts here. CM Punk is a one-hit wonder. His shoot promo and victory at the Money In The Bank PPV were amazing. Oh, and of course that one "Best In The World" shirt is great too. I honestly thought that he was going to be the next Stone Cold Steve Austin, but he dropped the ball quickly. He's still good on the mic, but he'll never be able to top that first shoot promo. His in-ring skills are overrated. People are acting as if he has the in-ring ability of superstars like Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Chris Jericho or Chris Benoit.

He doesn't have "the look" to be a top face or a top heel. Can you say worst tattoos ever? It doesn't even look like he works out either. Take anyone from this forum and have them do a P90X session and you'll probably be in better shape than CM Punk. For the Cena haters here, do you honestly think that CM Punk could do a GTS with The Big Show and Edge on his shoulders at the same time like when Cena setup the FU on them? CM Punk should drop the title at the Royal Rumble to someone worthy of the title like Christian and retire from in-ring competition. Yeah, I know Christian is technically on Smackdown but with the Supershow concept, it really doesn't matter anymore now does it? Let's put CM Punk on commentary in place of Josh Matthews or Booker T and have the former Tough Enough contestant and the 5 time WCW champion wrestle on the roster instead to mix it up.
 
couldn't the ratings have gone down because kids were told to sleep by their parents?

Also, the argument that punk doesn't make Pay per view buy rates go up, have to stop. The economy, and ppv prices being high have a greater impact on the buy rates than punk. That, and sites where you can download the ppv's.

Also, a drop in ratings might also have to do with the fact that adults,(since lets face it, only adults should be watching wrestling) have lives, and have to go to sleep so that they can have energy for work the next day.

I can bet you that the op has not taken into consideration any of these factors, other than he doesn't like punk.

WWE had its best year in the height of the recession in 2009 since 2001. (your argument holds no water on the recession)

Are you aware of the attitude era? I guess those 8.1's in the 11:00 over-run slots (up from the average 7.0's) u are un-aware of. (I guess all those ppl were told to go to sleep or had lives)

EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES!
 
Wow. First Ryan86 stop calling every Punk fan a mark. YOU ARE A MARK. Every wrestling fan is a mark. You are making it seem like it is a bad word. I would also appreciate if you don't start a thread about Punk, then go on the end of your posts and say something like "Cody is a God."

Secondly, you say rating have been dropping for Raw in the last four months. They drop every year in this time frame, because Raw is competing with Monday Night Football. Monday Night Football has a stranglehold on this.

People like Punk because he is edgy and brings something new to WWE. Fact: he had a five star match. When was the last time WWE had a five star match?

Also everything you say that is a "fact", seems subjective until I see actually proof. Compare rating in this time period with ratings in this time period from last year. People can prove CM Punk is leading merchandise sells. The house shows not selling as well can't be blamed with one man. Did you ever consider the economy. Wrestling as a whole isn't doing as well as it did in previous years. Add in the increase in the price of buying pay-per-views and the economy, ppv costing too much, and/or a combination of the two might be the reason people aren't buying pay per views.

They are buying merchandise from one wrestler right now and that is the evidence I can use to prove Punk should stay with WWE. You can't get rid of someone making you money, especially someone who has been outselling the man that used to outsell everyone for years.

By the way, it is hard to take someone serious you can't spell properly and uses "u" instead of "you"
 
Those two scenarios are only in the context to box me in a black and white argument.

Those hypotheticals are assuming that is the way I veiw things. It also puts words in my mouth. And it does not stay in context with my argument.

It was a simple question, framed in a scenario to make it a little bit more, well, tangible; would you rather have a bad product that receives good ratings or a good product with bad ratings? It wasn't a trap, I wasn't going to ambush you and yell, "Ah-ha! I knew it! You're secretly in love with Randy Orton! It's all the baby oil that does it for you, isn't it?"

I don't know why you're obsessed with presenting these things in an objective way, nor do I think you are presenting them in an objective way. To equate ratings with success is simply changing the subject. You're not disinterested, you're just changing what your interest is. You, the subject, are just acting as someone who prioritises financial success. The problem with this is that you, the subject, aren't someone that actually benefits from financial success.

You're not a WWE investor in a board room, you're a WWE fan on a wrestling forum. You don't make more money if the ratings go up; you do enjoy the product more if the writing improves. Whether ratings go up or down is of no consequence to you; whether CM Punk puts on a great match at the end of Raw is of consequence to you.

If you want to tell me that you dislike CM Punk because he's sloppy in the ring and boring on the microphone, I'm all ears. I'll debate you on it, because - contrary to what you think - opinions are these monstrous intangibles that can't be argued for or against. If you want to tell me that you dislike CM Punk because his main event drew a slightly smaller number than the opening segment, I'm just wondering if you're secretly a robot that sustains itself on good ratings. Your priorities are backwards.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,832
Messages
3,300,742
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top