CM Punk is not....

[XXJJ]

Punk is very overrated by the IWC. He is a good but not as great as some make him out to be. He can actually be very sloppy in ring.

I liked him a lot better during the SES days.

The guy has had one of the longest wwe title reign in history, but its amazing to see how much he has been overshadowed during his reign. The fact that they turned him heel this quickly is pretty telling.

I agree with your point about his shoot promo. Fans will always eat that stuff up. It takes more talent getting really popular without breaking kayfabe.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I've read over a few more posts and where does all this "he's not a good babyface" bullshit coming from? Have you even paid attention to the massive response that Punk has continuously gotten since his main event push started last year?

It never ceases to amaze me how foolish people are sometimes when it comes to what makes someone good or not when it comes to what sort of character they portray. See here's the thing: just because CM Punk may not have been the type of babyface that some personally thought he should've been doesn't mean he was a bad babyface. I can say Hulk Hogan couldn't wrestle his way out of a paper bag, which is mostly true, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a fantastic draw that constantly had people invested in him.

When you consider that CM Punk was still second to John Cena throughout his run, didn't get as much focus as Cena or as much hype as Cena, I think it shows just how talented Punk has been as a babyface. Without the WWE machine fully backing him as most of their attention was put on John Cena, Punk has still managed to be the strongest champion pro wrestling has seen in several years. He's still managed to have overall solid feuds and has delivered some of the best matches of the year in any promotion with some of the wrestlers in those feuds. Even though Punk hasn't had as much hype or attention as Cena by the WWE brass, he's still had the continued support, interest and popularity of the fans. I'm sorry but whether you like CM Punk or not, the guy's a genuine star and he's spent more than a year proving it.

 

[braveh]

I've read over a few more posts and where does all this "he's not a good babyface" bullshit coming from? Have you even paid attention to the massive response that Punk has continuously gotten since his main event push started last year?

It never ceases to amaze me how foolish people are sometimes when it comes to what makes someone good or not when it comes to what sort of character they portray. See here's the thing: just because CM Punk may not have been the type of babyface that some personally thought he should've been doesn't mean he was a bad babyface. I can say Hulk Hogan couldn't wrestle his way out of a paper bag, which is mostly true, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a fantastic draw that constantly had people invested in him.

We can not have these kind of discussions because it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is tv-ratings and PPV-buyrates. If CM Punk was a great babyface then tv-ratings would be up and ppv-buys would be through the roof. They're not. They are down ever since MITB 2011

So again. How is/was CM Punk a good babyface for the WWE?

 

[Radical Canadian Goose]

Yes, Punk is not the saviour of the masses.

What Punk is , is the single greatest reason to watch WWE TV week in and week out for the past year and a half. Is Punk better as a heel or a face? Who really cares, he is entertaining regardless. We are all just to critical these days, because we think we know to much. We all expected Punk to become the next SCSA "antiauthority" type. Unortunately, it is a tough gimmick to get over, even tougher in todays day and age, so ultimately it just wasn't working. Can we blame Punk for Buyrates and TV ratings? Ummm nope, because he is still the champ, if Vince and co were concerned that much about Punk affecting the ratings, then they would have stripped him long ago. I stay stop ripping CM Punk as he is a solid performer and consummate entertainer. BTW I really am not that big of a Punk fan, just know talent when I see it

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

C.M. Punk was not a " 'baby' face" because he did things untraditionally from the black and white view of a good superhero overcoming all odds thrown against him. It would be more proper to just call him a face instead, which he did a great job portraying, as seen by the level of interest in him from fans in the WWE Universe. Another user pointed out that he got that far without the huge WWE marketing going behind him one hundred percent all the way, dropping other priorities instead, and I kind of was building off of that idea. In other words, he can adapt relatively well when given a task, whether it is to be a focus for fans of the growing teenage years, or older adults that like his bold attitude, or even if it is to bother and annoy the heck out of viewers, that he did well even in the Straight Edge Society.

See, what Steve Austin did when he was face of the company was kind of on an analogical level here: the company still told him what to do, being a rebel to authority in character, but he did it with a very unique spin that ONLY he convincingly and enduringly put up for years constantly, without compromising that gimmick. He also shouldn't be called a " 'baby' face", but was still a face nonetheless.

Also, did it ever occur to anyone that C.M. Punk COULD be the best on ANY given night during the past year and a half? It doesn't mean he is the absolute best of all time, as the way it could be interpreted is that for a specific episode of RAW for example, he might have put on the match of the night, so therefore he was the best for THAT SHOW. Then maybe in the week following, Daniel Bryan stole the show, so he was the best that night. If you think past the absolute extremes of best meaning forever or for years and years, this concept might sink in.

To the person saying he does deserve to be considered among the likes of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, The Rock, etc., I feel that not enough time has passed with him at the position he is in. It would be more appropriate to wait long multiple seasons before evaluating him alongside those hall of famers.

 

[Darkseifer330]

Not true. Creative said to Punk, take it away be yourself, it's your stage. It is his fault. He is not a good babyface. Own up to it.

It's not Punk's fault. If you had to blame someone, blame the creative team. They screwed up Punk, forcing him to take a backseat to AGAIN crappy matches. His title reign got lost in the back of Cena's Grand Chariot. You're totally missing the point. I was not going on to say Punk being a babyface. Read what I said again, I was saying that Cena is not better than Punk. Cena's a hype man, and a cash cow, nothing more. Punk doesn't have to suck up to the fans to get over and you know that. Punk can get over on his own, but as long as Cena is on top and the crappy creative thats holding him back he's going to be where he is now. Lost in the Cena shuffle.

Cena may be a good babyface, but Punk is an overall better character in my opinion. and don't bring up TV Ratings and Draws because WWE has been on the decline even when Cena was WWE champion. Kids (Parents) count 2 or more people= Ratings/Buyrates/Ticket Sales for Cena. In all you are totally missing the point of this whole discussion it's about Punk getting over as a babyface, it's about him getting over as a character. IMO WWE can't do the babyface thing anymore, it's old and stale (Sheamus, Cena, and insert generic cookie cutter good guy here).

 

[SerapisLiber]

We can not have these kind of discussions because it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is tv-ratings and PPV-buyrates. If CM Punk was a great babyface then tv-ratings would be up and ppv-buys would be through the roof. They're not. They are down ever since MITB 2011

So again. How is/was CM Punk a good babyface for the WWE?

Ah, so that being the case, there are literally NO good baby faces, and well, NO good workers period, because, as you well know, Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Rock, Lesnar, Bryan, Ziggler, Jericho, and whole host of others have also been on TV trying to move the product since MITB as well, and yet, as you have shown, the numbers are still going down. Are none of these guys good workers either?

It is clearly not a problem with the talent. They have a very talented and capable roster. So did WCW when it first started to go downhill, yet there was no one on earth with enough talent to save that shitfest. It was not a problem that needed to be corrected by the talent, it needed to be corrected backstage.

If the rumors I keep hearing are true, I'm hoping some effective changes will be put in place when son-in-law finally gets the reigns next month. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Perhaps naively so. Oh well.

 

[dman1373]

first of all the reason why people loved his shoot a year ago was because it was mostly true. At that time he was having the best matches, cutting the best promos, and even on commentary he was amazing. You think his shoot was the only thing he has done, than look no further than his fued with jeff hardy, or his fued with randy orton, or his fued with rey mysterio, or even his earlier fued with john cena. He just always kills it especially when hes a heel. And you will have these indy haters out here saying well hes not that good, cause his elbow or because he would shoot a little bit. Then they will say the cenas or ortons or some other wwe grown wrestlers are better, just cause there not "internet darlings."

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Fanboys galore.

I don't think I have the energy to pick each and every post that I have a problem with but I'll Stormtroop through this:

1. My point here is two-fold: a. I do NOT hold the notion that Punk is the best. This is addressed to the fans who say so more than Punk. Jacky H, raised a good point when he said people like Bret and Flair said it all the time. It's a gimmick. I think almost everyone knows that Punk isn't the best technician they have seen, or the best brawler around and his aerial offence is nearly Christian-bad. b. Apart from his great verbal skills I have never found him to be THE BEST in anything else. But did I mark out when he won last year at MiTB? Of course I did. But the situation that put him there and the circumstances around made it that much better. The angle was the nest I have seen in years.


2. I humbly apologize, I forgot his SES bearded, fluffy chested persona. I absolutely adored that phase and that promo at the Rumble. Even he would've stuck to that he would've been a top heel. But you see what happened? You see what always happens? They become so cool as the bad guys that people love'em. nWo, Austin you name it and thats what happened to Punk. But the fact of the matter is for everyone who has said that they are the best they have backed it in the ring. When Bret said 'excellence of execution' he really was. You know how I came to that conclusion? When I saw other people execute the sharpshooter and never hook the knee. It's a small point but try and understand where I am coming from. Punk has a great mind, but he is in NO WAY the best in the world, and if this was 2009 I would say the same thing about Jericho.


3. I am not anti-Punk. But Punk's persona hurt Del Rio's career like a SCUD. This I do not blame on Punk but the people who ok what is ok to be said. Cena on the hand in my opinion (and contrary to Dirtyjoses's) gave a Punk a dose of his own medicine. And it was beautiful. When Punk would diss other people, who had less verbal skills than him he did come off as a bully for me. Personal opinion, he has better skills so he uses them, fair enough, but the fact of the matter is Punk as good as he is, and he is good, is not the best.

 

[Desyar]

It's not Punk's fault. If you had to blame someone, blame the creative team. They screwed up Punk, forcing him to take a backseat to AGAIN crappy matches. His title reign got lost in the back of Cena's Grand Chariot. You're totally missing the point. I was not going on to say Punk being a babyface. Read what I said again, I was saying that Cena is not better than Punk. Cena's a hype man, and a cash cow, nothing more. Punk doesn't have to suck up to the fans to get over and you know that. Punk can get over on his own, but as long as Cena is on top and the crappy creative thats holding him back he's going to be where he is now. Lost in the Cena shuffle.

Cena may be a good babyface, but Punk is an overall better character in my opinion. and don't bring up TV Ratings and Draws because WWE has been on the decline even when Cena was WWE champion. Kids (Parents) count 2 or more people= Ratings/Buyrates/Ticket Sales for Cena. In all you are totally missing the point of this whole discussion it's about Punk getting over as a babyface, it's about him getting over as a character. IMO WWE can't do the babyface thing anymore, it's old and stale (Sheamus, Cena, and insert generic cookie cutter good guy here).

Punk was a better face than Cena in my opinion. And unlike Cena, Punk rarely got negative reactions from the audience during his face run. Maybe if Vince actually had the balls to turn Cena heel instead then WWE right now would actually be interesting.

 

[braveh]

Ah, so that being the case, there are literally NO good baby faces, and well, NO good workers period, because, as you well know, Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Rock, Lesnar, Bryan, Ziggler, Jericho, and whole host of others have also been on TV trying to move the product since MITB as well, and yet, as you have shown, the numbers are still going down. Are none of these guys good workers either?

It is clearly not a problem with the talent. They have a very talented and capable roster. So did WCW when it first started to go downhill, yet there was no one on earth with enough talent to save that shitfest. It was not a problem that needed to be corrected by the talent, it needed to be corrected backstage.

If the rumors I keep hearing are true, I'm hoping some effective changes will be put in place when son-in-law finally gets the reigns next month. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Perhaps naively so. Oh well.

C.M. Punk was not a " 'baby' face" because he did things untraditionally from the black and white view of a good superhero overcoming all odds thrown against him. It would be more proper to just call him a face instead, which he did a great job portraying, as seen by the level of interest in him from fans in the WWE Universe. Another user pointed out that he got that far without the huge WWE marketing going behind him one hundred percent all the way, dropping other priorities instead, and I kind of was building off of that idea. In other words, he can adapt relatively well when given a task, whether it is to be a focus for fans of the growing teenage years, or older adults that like his bold attitude, or even if it is to bother and annoy the heck out of viewers, that he did well even in the Straight Edge Society.

See, what Steve Austin did when he was face of the company was kind of on an analogical level here: the company still told him what to do, being a rebel to authority in character, but he did it with a very unique spin that ONLY he convincingly and enduringly put up for years constantly, without compromising that gimmick. He also shouldn't be called a " 'baby' face", but was still a face nonetheless.

Also, did it ever occur to anyone that C.M. Punk COULD be the best on ANY given night during the past year and a half? It doesn't mean he is the absolute best of all time, as the way it could be interpreted is that for a specific episode of RAW for example, he might have put on the match of the night, so therefore he was the best for THAT SHOW. Then maybe in the week following, Daniel Bryan stole the show, so he was the best that night. If you think past the absolute extremes of best meaning forever or for years and years, this concept might sink in.

To the person saying he does deserve to be considered among the likes of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, The Rock, etc., I feel that not enough time has passed with him at the position he is in. It would be more appropriate to wait long multiple seasons before evaluating him alongside those hall of famers.

It's not Punk's fault. If you had to blame someone, blame the creative team. They screwed up Punk, forcing him to take a backseat to AGAIN crappy matches. His title reign got lost in the back of Cena's Grand Chariot. You're totally missing the point. I was not going on to say Punk being a babyface. Read what I said again, I was saying that Cena is not better than Punk. Cena's a hype man, and a cash cow, nothing more. Punk doesn't have to suck up to the fans to get over and you know that. Punk can get over on his own, but as long as Cena is on top and the crappy creative thats holding him back he's going to be where he is now. Lost in the Cena shuffle.

Cena may be a good babyface, but Punk is an overall better character in my opinion. and don't bring up TV Ratings and Draws because WWE has been on the decline even when Cena was WWE champion. Kids (Parents) count 2 or more people= Ratings/Buyrates/Ticket Sales for Cena. In all you are totally missing the point of this whole discussion it's about Punk getting over as a babyface, it's about him getting over as a character. IMO WWE can't do the babyface thing anymore, it's old and stale (Sheamus, Cena, and insert generic cookie cutter good guy here).

Here is my point. Once in a while the WWE gets a hot face. They push him and if that guy is good enough to play the role the numbers take off. CM Punk did not do a good job in that role as the hot face last summer.

The numbers were supposed to go up because CM Punk was so hot. But couldn't handle the role.

Ok let's run the numbers from the wwe-document. Cena became a hot face for the company in 2005.

SS 2004 387k
SS 2005 634k
2006-2007 over 500k
2008 447k
2009 369k
2010 350k
2011 296k

Like I said, I think CM Punk has been good in past. Occasionally a great heel (love the Mysterio angle). So I'm not a hater.

 

[SerapisLiber]

Here is my point. Once in a while the WWE gets a hot face. They push him and if that guy is good enough to play the role the numbers take off. CM Punk did not do a good job in that role as the hot face last summer.

The numbers were supposed to go up because CM Punk was so hot. But couldn't handle the role.

Sometimes yes. However, when there is a paradigm shift (or at least an attempt at one) one major factor that has to be taken into account is a transition of audience as well. Cena is the face of the PG Era, which markets mostly to young children (and by extension their parents).

Punk's appeal leading up to MITB was more towards "IWC/Smart Marks" and those of us who grew up on the Attitude Era. Punk was what got me watching again after 7 years.

Punk was appealing to us, meanwhile he was off putting to the PG Crowd. If they'd have allowed for enough time for the angle to finish driving off or converting the PG Crowd and to keep bringing in us older viewers, I have no doubt numbers would have stabilized and then started to grow. Also bear in mind that Punk was a heel when he made that shoot, and some of the heel heat he had still carried over with the PG crowd. This is why he was super hot in Chicago and hot at his return, yet the next week he came out to mixed reactions.

The response to this reminds me a lot of the mid 90s when Shawn Michaels was on his way up to being the face of the company and they were making their transition towards the Attitude Era.

Shawn, like Punk, had mostly been the cocky asshole heel. While he was the number two guy after Kevin Nash, 1995, that was allegedly the worst year of business the company ever had. When Nash left and they were sort of forced to give Shawn the ball, much like Punk, he was being pushed as a babyface and poster child for the company, but business did not take off. 96 was only marginally better overall and it fluctuated up and down as we fans who had for so many years hated Shawn as the arrogant metrosexual heel needed some time to get used to the transition of seeing Shawn as a face and as the new top guy who brought a different feel to the title scene. Even though his work was far above anything Nash ever did.

Fast forward one year and Shawn was again in the spot of being the face of the company, but this time, the audience had made the transition. This time, Shawn was over, even though he was supposed to be a heel, he was coming out to some good pops. Enter DX and the beginning of the Attitude Era. Even then, from what I hear, business didn't sky rocket, although it was better than 96. But this completed the transition and helped set up for what would be a record year for the company and when the company would finally surpass WCW. It helped set the course of the company.

So in 96 it could've been argued using your logic that Shawn "couldn't handle the role". Yet in 97-98, he proved he most certainly could.

It takes time for new stars, angles, and genres to build up momentum. It takes time for the audience to adjust to a paradigm shift within the product.

Instead, certain persons behind the curtain at WWE forgot that and panicked when Punk didn't immediately get the same reaction as Steve Austin, and/or certain persons deliberately ignored such a fact and took advantage of what they knew was going to bring an initial dip before stabilizing. Either way, they chopped down that tree a season too early before it had the chance to bear any fruit.

Ok let's run the numbers from the wwe-document. Cena became a hot face for the company in 2005.

SS 2004 387k
SS 2005 634k
2006-2007 over 500k
2008 447k
2009 369k
2010 350k
2011 296k

Does SS=Summer Slam? Interesting, because in 2004 the previous WWE champion before Cena, the one whom Cena beat was...

J. B. Fucking L.

Of course Cena can draw better numbers than him. Several people in the company at the time could have.

And the headliners were robotic Chris Benoit jobbing out to a still green Orton.

I say several people besides just Cena could've drawn better than those two at the time as well.

What is interesting is that the numbers you posted show a steady decline since Cena was given the ball, to the point where the past 3 years have been worse than 2004.

It is also unfortunate that your numbers do not yet include THIS year, the year when Punk IS (allegedly) the top guy of the company.

 

[Trill Co$by]

We can not have these kind of discussions because it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is tv-ratings and PPV-buyrates. If CM Punk was a great babyface then tv-ratings would be up and ppv-buys would be through the roof. They're not. They are down ever since MITB 2011

So again. How is/was CM Punk a good babyface for the WWE?

It's not that he couldn't be a babyface. It's that WWE wouldn't take Cena off the air long enough to allow him to be the babyface.

And it's not just a thing with Punk, they've done it countless of times. Edge, Orton, Sheamus, Big Show... hell even Batista. They never let someone else take the stick because they have to pump Cena up so much. When Orton turned face and feuded with Miz and even Sheamus, Cena was headlining Raw with Nexus. When Batista took the World title from HHH and should've taken control of Raw as the top face, they moved him to Smackdown and Cena to Raw. Face it, WWE screws everybody over when they get a face turn. Hell, Daniel Bryan was and IS more of a babyface than Cena, but he and Kane are relegated to tag titles. Zack Ryder was a top face and had all the momentum, but again, WWE stuck him with Cena to drain him of his hype and then shifted him back to Superstars with a squash on Raw or Smackdown once or twice a month.

CM Punk could honestly be the next Triple H of Monday Night Raw, but in a good way. He proved that when he had the entire world on his fingertips when Nash came into play. He proved that when he and Dolph Ziggler went into Royal Rumble and tore the roof off that building. He proved it when he and Jericho had two great matches at WM & EC. He proved it when he, Daniel Bryan, and Kane had a great program. He proved it when he and AJ were the center of attention on BOTH Raw AND Smackdown.

CM Punk doesn't draw as a face? If that's the case, then how come his merchandise is at a point to where he's rivaling John Cena? Because he does draw, and he proved it. And now, he's drawing heat as a heel which is exactly what he does best in the WWE.

 

[SerapisLiber]

^Damn straight.

Anyway, after re-reading my previous reply, I just wanted to make a clarification, as part of my post might be unfair to Cena. I'm no Cena fan, but he has been a workhorse for the company.
So one thing I neglected to mention that should be taken into account when reviewing the steady decline in PPV, and well, in wrestling business overall, since around '04 is that businesses that marketed through electronic media have globally seen a consistent decline in business since around that same time as well, thanks mostly to...

the internet.

People can download music for free, movies for free, and yes, sports PPVs for free, all on the internet.

Luckily, through the usage of things like Youtube streaming and embedded ads in online videos, social networks, etc., etc. businesses like the WWE seem to be making the transition to the internet generation and hopefully business can begin to stabilize and then grow.

So, even if the numbers for this year are up from last year, I don't mean to imply that would be entirely CM Punk's doing, nor did I mean to imply that declining numbers were entirely Cena's doing.

 

[SerapisLiber]

Well, the numbers for Summer Slam this year are in and allegedly are over 350k, which if true is up significantly from last year. (source TVTRAX- youtube.com/watch?v=ZgtH0t3om6A)

However, it is unfortunate that Punk & Cena were not the headliners, but rather Lesnar & HHH were, thus leaving this particular point unsettled.