CM Punk is great! however he doesnt draw money!

[Slyfox696]

Dude saying faces are the only draws completely negates that the BIG draw of the NWA in the 80's was the 4 Horsemen, A HEEL GROUP, led by the biggest draw they ever had Ric Flair, again ALSO A HEEL

People didn't show up to watch Ric Flair or the Horsemen, they showed up to see the good guys like Steamboat, Magnum, Rhodes, etc. beat the Four Horsemen. They showed up for the faces.

If Flair wrestled Arn Anderson and they were both heels, do you think they would have drawn nearly as much?

but you're right faces are the only draws, I guess Buddy Rogers and Gorgeous George weren't draws either by that genius logic.

You're talking about guys from over 50 years ago. I'm sure that has a lot to do with modern pro wrestling.

Point is heels CAN in fact DRAW

Your proof of this is two guys from over 50 years ago? Yeah, good job.

if Piper wasn't such a great heel, Hogan wouldn't have gotten nearly as over as a face.

Complete and utter bullshit. Hogan was already massively over as a face. Try again.

Also the nWo is a PERFECT example that heels can in fact draw (but you already know that from your previous response), its not a common practice but its VERY possible.

First of all, heels VERY RARELY draw (which is what I said to begin with), but let's just examine what you're saying.

Are you really trying to tell me CM Punk is as good as Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Gorgeous George and Buddy Rogers? Is that really the position you're taking?

Besides times have changed, people are over the classic babyface role and guys like Austin proved that, if Austin was a clean cut baby face he NEVER would have been as big as he became but really Austin was a heel, posing as a face.

But Punk isn't a face, he's a heel.

And that's just bullshit anyways. Austin was very clearly a face wrestler. Hulk Hogan wasn't never the choir boy people pretend he was. He routinely used closed fists (against the rules), raked the back, used cheap shots, interfered in matches, etc. So this notion that Austin was the first face to not be Ricky Steamboat is just silly.

Make no mistake about it, Steve Austin was, without a doubt, a face.

Austin may have been popular, but he got there by being a HEEL not a face. Him and McMahon was basically a heel that everyone loved vs. a heel everyone hated.

Do you even know what the word "heel" means?

In no way, shape or form was Austin a heel after the start of 1998, until he turned at Wrestlemania 17.

Faces draw money is wrestling 101 but the last 15 years have proven that fact inaccurate, wrestlings boom period in the late 90's was built around heels (like Austin, Rock, nWo).

It's amazing how many times one person can be wrong in one post.

Secondly a lot of champs were just there to get from one story to another, not because they were given a chance at a draw. In most cases yes, being champ is your chance to draw but it wasn't in Punks case. All their effort in the last half of 2008 were around those story lines I told you, not around the title and CM Punk. I'm not saying that was the WWE's fault cuz I would have done the same thing but saying Punk got a shot is stupid, as champ he got maybe 10-15 minutes a week tops where Edge/Taker and HBK/Jericho were getting loads of TV time, especially Edge/Taker, Smackdown back then was pretty much the Edge show and that's where Punk was back then, from the minute punk was champ to the minute he lost it he was never in the forefront and always in the background, never in the spotlight so once again NO HE DIDN'T GET HIS CHANCE.

No, of course not.

Poor Punk, only FOUR World Championships to his name (including one in his first year of television), a long undefeated streak to start his career, the crown jewel of the reborn ECW, a debut in front of an incredibly smarky crowd who would pop big for him, a Triple Crown Winner, and a 2x Money in the Bank winner. Why won't the WWE ever get this poor guy a chance?


You've got to be kidding me with this nonsense.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

People didn't show up to watch Ric Flair or the Horsemen, they showed up to see the good guys like Steamboat, Magnum, Rhodes, etc. beat the Four Horsemen. They showed up for the faces.

If Flair wrestled Arn Anderson and they were both heels, do you think they would have drawn nearly as much?



You're talking about guys from over 50 years ago. I'm sure that has a lot to do with modern pro wrestling.

Your proof of this is two guys from over 50 years ago? Yeah, good job.

Complete and utter bullshit. Hogan was already massively over as a face. Try again.

First of all, heels VERY RARELY draw (which is what I said to begin with), but let's just examine what you're saying.

Are you really trying to tell me CM Punk is as good as Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Gorgeous George and Buddy Rogers? Is that really the position you're taking?

But Punk isn't a face, he's a heel.

And that's just bullshit anyways. Austin was very clearly a face wrestler. Hulk Hogan wasn't never the choir boy people pretend he was. He routinely used closed fists (against the rules), raked the back, used cheap shots, interfered in matches, etc. So this notion that Austin was the first face to not be Ricky Steamboat is just silly.

Make no mistake about it, Steve Austin was, without a doubt, a face.

Do you even know what the word "heel" means?

In no way, shape or form was Austin a heel after the start of 1998, until he turned at Wrestlemania 17.

It's amazing how many times one person can be wrong in one post.

No, of course not.

Poor Punk, only FOUR World Championships to his name (including one in his first year of television), a long undefeated streak to start his career, the crown jewel of the reborn ECW, a debut in front of an incredibly smarky crowd who would pop big for him, a Triple Crown Winner, and a 2x Money in the Bank winner. Why won't the WWE ever get this poor guy a chance?


You've got to be kidding me with this nonsense.

Fact: the Von Erichs were big draws BECAUSE of the freebirds. They were already draws but the Freebirds made them bigger, thats the truth.

Fact: Arn vs. Flair wouldn't draw money true but neither would Steamboat vs. Nikita Koloff either.

Fact: The Rock was drawing MANY fans in long before he became a face. Back in late 98, early 99 the Rock was drawing people in with his promos and work, I know So many fans that started watching wrestling around that time it was insane and most of them were rock fans, this was long before he turned face in late april '99.

Fact: Yes Hogan was massively over but the work of heels like Piper, Andre and Macho helped build Hogans popularity more and more and made Hogan a bigger name and bigger star. If Hogan was fighting Bob Orton and Adrian Adonis that whole time he wouldn't have been as big as he became.

Fact: from 2003-2005 RAW was all HHH, he was the main drawing point that entire time. If people are watching Nash vs. HHH to see Nash beat HHH, then HHH is the real draw. There not buying a ticket to see Nash win, they are buying a ticket to see HHH LOSE (see how heels can be draws?).

I understand your point but you really got to stop thinking so black and white. You act like everything should follow the same basic premise when things like the attitude era and nWo era WCW proved otherwise.

Just because what your saying USUALLY is the chain of command doesn't make it always right.

Plus throwing all of Punks title reigns and accomplishments is never a good argument in an era where none of that stuff matters. Titles mean nothing pal get used to it. I'll never say Punk is in the same league as Hogan but that doesn't mean he can't be a draw as a heel. You don't need to be Hogan to draw as a heel, you just have the skills to do it, and Punk certainly has those skills.

You getting on my case for using Gorgeous George and Buddy Rogers as an argument, you are living by a rule book that doesn't even exist anymore. You are living by this black and white wrestling encyclopedia not realizing wrestling now lives in this plane called the grey area. Vince even said back in '97 the idea of good guys vs. bad guys is dead and that the old stagnant idea of heels vs. faces was obsolete. If Vince followed your rulebook WWE wouldn't even exist right now.

 

[Slyfox696]

Fact: the Von Erichs were big draws BECAUSE of the freebirds. They were already draws but the Freebirds made them bigger, thats the truth.

So we agree the good guys were the draws, right?

Fact: Arn vs. Flair wouldn't draw money true but neither would Steamboat vs. Nikita Koloff either.

But Hogan vs. Warrior did. As has many Face vs. Face matchups over the years, including modern times.

Fact: The Rock was drawing MANY fans in long before he became a face. Back in late 98, early 99 the Rock was drawing people in with his promos and work, I know So many fans that started watching wrestling around that time it was insane and most of them were rock fans, this was long before he turned face in late april '99.

But he turned face, right? Why? If he was drawing so well as a heel, why turn him face? Because he draws a lot better, right?

By the way, as far as Rock's drawing in 1999, who was the protagonists to his antagonism? Steve Austin and Mick Foley? Oh, that's right.

Fact: Yes Hogan was massively over but the work of heels like Piper, Andre and Macho helped build Hogans popularity more and more and made Hogan a bigger name and bigger star. If Hogan was fighting Bob Orton and Adrian Adonis that whole time he wouldn't have been as big as he became.

Hogan was fighting guys like Bossman and Zeus, and was still mega over. Hogan was mega over in the AWA, he was over in Japan. Hogan was over.

Fact: from 2003-2005 RAW was all HHH, he was the main drawing point that entire time.

And ratings kept going down. What's your point?

2002 started with a 4.9 rating. 2005 started with a 3.4 rating.

I understand your point but you really got to stop thinking so black and white. You act like everything should follow the same basic premise when things like the attitude era and nWo era WCW proved otherwise.

Except they didn't really prove otherwise.

WCW rating skyrocketed as Sting was groomed into the Hogan's challenger, and Goldberg went on his massive streak. Austin was a face, and Rock was turned into one.

Just because what your saying USUALLY is the chain of command doesn't make it always right.

Unless Punk is Hogan, Flair, Rogers, or George, I daresay I'll be right again.

Plus throwing all of Punks title reigns and accomplishments is never a good argument in an era where none of that stuff matters.

I didn't do that. I threw his booking into the argument.

Big difference. When you're a four time World champion, when you're given an undefeated streak to begin your career, when your debut is tailor-made for your success, and when you've been given material no one else in the WWE gets to use, the last thing you can claim is that the WWE hasn't supported you.

Which is what you're now trying to claim. That the WWE didn't support Punk. Which is a load of BS.

You getting on my case for using Gorgeous George and Buddy Rogers as an argument, you are living by a rule book that doesn't even exist anymore.

Which is why John Cena has been a heel so many times since 2005, right? Which is why the Undertaker has been a heel his entire career. Why is why Rey Mysterio is a heel, or Great Khali never became a face, correct?

My rule book is very much in effect, and has been since the dawn of scripted pro wrestling.

You are living by this black and white wrestling encyclopedia not realizing wrestling now lives in this plane called the grey area. Vince even said back in '97 the idea of good guys vs. bad guys is dead and that the old stagnant idea of heels vs. faces was obsolete. If Vince followed your rulebook WWE wouldn't even exist right now.

Yes, because the concept of a guy who doesn't like his boss and works against "the machine" is such a sign of a bad guy these days.

I think you've been worked by McMahon. Faces draw, heels don't. If heels drew, then people would pay for a heel vs. heel match. They don't.


I'm very much right, Punk has received very good booking (in fact, I used to say his booking at the beginning of his TV career was the best since Ric Flair back in '91), and he's had multiple chances to be a top guy. He's yet to make anything out of those.

 

[joejoe]

Lots of fun responses in this thread. Here's my take on CM Punk being a draw or not...

As Sly said many times Punk as a face was awful. He was boring, he was booked poorly (an under dog champion who is lucky to keep his belt) he didn't have any memorable matches or feuds or even moments.

Also as Sly said Faces draw, that's correct. However Punk seems to be turning into a tweener character/on the way to a full blown babyface without acting like a typical babyface. Him going face to face and going against the best heel of all time Vince McMahon on monday night was a prime example of that. So eventually he can turn into an Austin esque face.

As far as him drawing.. I say you need to give him a chance with this new gimmick. Yes he had a chance to draw before as a champion but that was as a boring babyface instead of this new tweener character he has been working on.

If you look at the attitude era in 1997/ early 1998 it was a slow steady build. The WWE had a good solid show before people started watching. It takes time to create a buzz and in our "we want results now" society It's not fair to say he's a failure with this new character after only a couple of weeks.

Give him some time and see if he can draw. I think he can.

 

[Peep]

This thread has already been dissected to high heaven, I know. But I thought I'd throw my two cents in by saying CM Punk is solely the reason I've committed to buy Money in the Bank - and I'm not one to buy PPVs often. The only other PPV I've purchased this year is Extreme Rules.

Is it a good PPV by itself? Sure - there's always the excitement of the case matches. But Punk is really who has sold this entire PPV for the past month - not just to me but to wrestling fans everywhere. Even if he does leave at the end of the night and even if all the smarks have an educated guess on what may happen in the match, I still want to see it for myself. They've sold it well enough to earn my buy and have done so through Punk.

 

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

Why wasn't CM Punk a draw? The guy has been booked poorly throughout his WWE career. His world title reigns were booked very badly. He was made to look like a weak champion as a face and a heel.

You must also remember that CM Punk never had this much freedom on the mic. He is saying things NO one has said before. No WWE star has never been allowed to shot the company on the mic.

Punk is finally in a good program. I hope the WWE books him better.

Cm Punk just needs to be booked better.

 

[rkopaton]

This thread has already been dissected to high heaven, I know. But I thought I'd throw my two cents in by saying CM Punk is solely the reason I've committed to buy Money in the Bank - and I'm not one to buy PPVs often. The only other PPV I've purchased this year is Extreme Rules.

It's my first PPV buy (Wrestlemania apart) since last years Wrestlemania. There has been very little going on this last year, nothing that I couldn't see on RAW or Smackdown. However, I will be buying MITB because of CM Punk and the unpredictability that his match with Cena has. I think the biggest mark out moment I would ever have is if Punk won, then a MITB winner comes down and LOSES to Punk. That could make Punk a true main event superstar in 5 minutes

 

[LittleJimmy]

Ok, this thread is a perfect example of why internet fans are never taken seriously. They come onto boards like this one and debate whether a guy like CM Punk is a draw. Really??? How the hell would ANYONE on this board know if he is a draw? So you look at tv ratings and say "see, he cant draw....he's no good". People, just relax and enjoy this great storyline while we can because after Sunday it may be over.