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:
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...