First Orton, Now Punk

[legendkiller1979]

What is the WWE to do? You need faces and you need heels. Unfortunately it's cool to be a heel. The WWE is in a bind. Guys try to be hated and get cheered. John Cena comes out and tried to be the stereotypical good guy and people hate his guts for it. There really is no good answer because it's not as simple and black and white. If Punk gets cheered too much more, the WWE will probably turn him face; it's what they do. I just hope they remember Randy Orton's face turn in 2004. What a disaster that was.

 

[JGlass]

I suppose someone could mistake this for humor

Yeah, I've been watching a lot of Scrubs lately. I'm sure someone besides me liked it though.

If he is so bad at what he does, why is he still insanely over? You have no answer for this. Why? Because you're initial assumption was wrong, and totally based upon your personal dislike for him, his character, whatever the reason. I don't recall those in the IWC bitching about his heel work. Most started hating on the guy after the fans chose to react the way they did.

Okay okay okay, I know I'm making a mistake engaging the Debate-League Champion in an argument. His heel work was okay until he started getting too bland and losing any interesting aspect about his character, which is what could be said for most heels. I suppose I could have been wrong with the botched face turn for DiBiase and Rhodes, but I'm not the first poster around here to have cited that theory.

And I'll have you know, I've never liked Orton, and I don't care if the IWC didn't see how bland he was until he turned face. He just never did anything for me, and now the masses are starting to see why.

Was Orton not making life hell for the top guy in the company just a few short months before his feud with Sheamus? He was drawing more heat than anyone, and that's why he was feuding with Cena in the first place. The WWE wanted to give Kofi a big push. How did they do this? By pairing him up with the biggest heel in the company; Randy Orton. He was doing his job so well, the fans began to cheer the guy, much like they did for Steve Austin in 1997. Was Steve Austin bad at his job as well?

No, Steve Austin was not bad at his job, but he wasn't booked to put over two younger heels and turn them into faces either. In fact, one could argue that the WWF was trying to make him into this new type of character that, despite being bad, was in a way good. Now there's no way of me or any of us proving this, but I don't doubt Vince McMahon having the creative insight to create such a character.

And he was still a heel when he challenged Sheamus at the Royal Rumble. Rhodes and DiBiase interfered in the number one contender's match to get him that spot, and we were treated to a super boring heel vs. heel championship match.

Your personal opinion, nothing more. I'm sure we could rustle up at least one idiot here on WrestleZone who believes Bushwhacker Luke should have gotten a main event-level push, but that wouldn't make it valid. Clouded your judgement, hatred has (that's right...Yoda, bitches).

Yeah, but, my personal opinion is pretty great if you ask me. And you're probably right, hatred (or at least intense disapproval) has sort of made me biased, but I appear to be in the minority of WWE fans here, so I suppose I really have no place.

Just kidding, this is the internet, and it gave this lowly fan a voice! Orton objectively sucks. The only thing he does well right now is his super-Orton shtick, and anyone can do that well if given the opportunity. When it comes to wrestling I can list at least 10 guys who are better than Orton. If mic skills capture your fancy, I can list about 15 guys better than Orton. If it comes to provoking the crowd... well Orton is pretty good at that, but by no means the best, and I could name no less than 5 guys who are better than he.

How is he not the anti-Cena? They are total opposites, and receive similar reactions. Cena is a squeaky-clean babyface, who fights for right and wrong. Orton is selfish, unnecessarily violent at times, and mean. If you don't see how they are complete opposites, we're watching different programs.

I would concede this point to you if we were towards the beginning of Orton's face run, but as I said, the days of selfish and exceedingly violent Orton are behind us. He's not as squeaky-clean as Cena, but he's really lost all the "I'm crazy and I don't give a fuck" vibes he gave off during the early part of his face run. What's the last thing he did that was something John Cena wouldn't do? I think you'd have to reach pretty far back into your memory to figure that one out.

Also, you can shit on his mic work all you want, but before he turned face and WWE stopped allowing him to speak, I thought Orton was cutting some damn fine heel promos, and obviously I wasn't alone.

And yet, they still took away his promo cutting privileges, thus depriving the world of the voice of a generation, a schizophrenic, monotone generation.

I think you're placing far too much importance on the "catalyst." They began getting cheered for being bad-asses. Both are tough guys, who don't take shit from anyone. That's the basis of both characters. Fans eat that shit up, and it shows by how popular both men became.

CM Punk isn't a bad ass. CM Punks is a coward who uses his brainwashed followers to help him procure favorable positions. Do you think Charles Manson was a bad ass? How about Jim Jones? When I think of bad ass, I think of a Stone Cold type of character. CM Punk is nothing like Stone Cold Steve Austin.

I know it's important for you to diminish everything Orton does, but this is just too much. You're smarter than this.

We can argue all day about who is smarter than what, let's just agree that I'm the smartest of them all and move on.

Is this really what we're left to complain with, crowds that where hot the whole night, but cheering for the "wrong" guy.

Why you gotta single me out? I'm not the only one who said it! Seriously though, the crowd plays an important role in the feel of a match, and when they cheer for heels it takes something out of it for the audience at home. I suppose it was unfair to call them a bad crowd, but by rooting for the heels they prevented the action in the matches from being as iconic as possible.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Ok, so I want to take this discussion in a mildly different direction, and thank you all for helping me start to formulate what could very well be my next Op Ed for Wrestlezone.com. You're all begging a great question regarding the role of the crowd and the existance of a babyface / heel struggle. Someone even brought up the concept of the Dungeon's & Dragons alignment, which no lie, is something I'd considered while reading the first page of this thread. (Yes, I was invovled with "D&D" in middle and high school. I'm like Chaz from Airheads.)

But let me offer this question - what's the big deal?

I feel like fans specifically are getting far too wrapped up in who is a face, who is a heel, and who should be what. In MMA - the other sporting entertainment in which the athletes do not play for geographically assigned 'teams,' fans decide who their 'faces and heels' are anyway. Georges St. Pierre is the consummate babyface, whereas his recent opponent in Josh Koscheck is the brash, cocky heel. Sure, they play that bit up an awful lot, but at the end of the day, both of them have the same goals.

Win fights. Win titles. Make money.

It's only slightly different in pro wrestling. The bookers decide who's going to win the fights, but in essenece, the only REASON for anyone to want to be a professional wrestler is exactly the same.

Win fights. Win titles. Make money.

So what if one guy does it all clean cut with a bright purple shirt on? So what if one guy does it with a brainwashed cult of followers? Who gives a shit what one guy's "tendencies" are. Isn't the goal the same? Why worry so much about manipulating the emotions of the crowd? Why overanalyze ONE market? I live in NJ, one of the most passionate and most smarky markets in the world. We cheer who we want to cheer. But at the end of the day, the goal for Cena, Punk, Orton, etc. is the same.

Win fights. Win titles. Make money.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Why you gotta single me out?

Because your name all bold n'stuff.

I'm not the only one who said it!

Are you comparing yourself to such established superstar posters like Zangash & xcalypsox?

Seriously though, the crowd plays an important role in the feel of a match, and when they cheer for heels it takes something out of it for the audience at home.

For some people it may take away from the match. For me personally, I do love a smarky crowd. While my opinions don't always fall in line with the general smark population I do cheer for many of the same people; but not always for the same reasons.

If a heel is getting cheered it usually means One of Two things.

1. The said "heel" is over, more over than the face or just over as a heel in general. When a wrestler is Over with the crowd, heel or not, he's gained and garnered himself a group of fans. A group of fans that's going to cheer, because they're more of fan of the heel than the face. Or they are just a fan of the heel in general.

2. People are sick and tired of the face, or the heel is more over than the face. While Cena is obviously more over with the young crowd, Punk is far more over with the thinking crowd.

As for Punk getting pops over Orton, well honestly, it's no surprise. You have punk who is oozing personality and you have Orton who has about as much flavor as a spoonful of sawdust.

Anyone over the age of "My Balls Have Dropped" is going to get more enjoyment and more entertainment out of what Punk brings to the table than that of Orton and Cena.

I suppose it was unfair to call them a bad crowd, but by rooting for the heels they prevented the action in the matches from being as iconic as possible.

It certainly is unfair to call a crowd who was hot the whole night a "bad" crowd just because it didn't suit your fancy. I HATED watching Cena win last night, but it doesn't take away from the overall PPV. Anyone but Cena is usually my PPV motto, and obviously I'm disappointed as a fan on a personal level, but I'm not going to let that effect how I feel about an overall PPV just because Cena wins again. Just because you didn't enjoy the smarky croud doesn't mean they ruined the show, or took away from the matches. The most Iconic crowds are usually the smarkiest. Cena/RVD Hammerstein Ballroom anyone? Probably the most Iconic crowd ever, smarkiest as well.

 

[JGlass]

Because your name all bold n'stuff.

Fair enough.

Are you comparing yourself to such established superstar posters like Zangash & xcalypsox?

They sound like solid dudes. I wouldn't be surprised if they are on the top of these forums in a month's time.

For some people it may take away from the match. For me personally, I do love a smarky crowd. While my opinions don't always fall in line with the general smark population I do cheer for many of the same people; but not always for the same reasons.

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree here, but I am a firm believer of to each his own.

If a heel is getting cheered it usually means One of Two things.

1. The said "heel" is over, more over than the face or just over as a heel in general. When a wrestler is Over with the crowd, heel or not, he's gained and garnered himself a group of fans. A group of fans that's going to cheer, because they're more of fan of the heel than the face. Or they are just a fan of the heel in general.

2. People are sick and tired of the face, or the heel is more over than the face. While Cena is obviously more over with the young crowd, Punk is far more over with the thinking crowd.

You have a high opinion of Oakland. Higher than most anyway. These are fair assessments, but it also could be because there are a bunch of smarks in the audience and they manage to hit a louder volume than the rest of the audience.

As for Punk getting pops over Orton, well honestly, it's no surprise. You have punk who is oozing personality and you have Orton who has about as much flavor as a spoonful of sawdust.

If CM Punk winds up turning face because he feuded with Orton that would tickle me in a way you usually have to pay extra for.

Anyone over the age of "My Balls Have Dropped" is going to get more enjoyment and more entertainment out of what Punk brings to the table than that of Orton and Cena.

Hey man, I like CM Punk and what he's doing, but Cena has been brilliant for the past few months and I'm marking for him hard lately, and my testicles have been descended for at least a week now. I will agree with you that CM Punk brings much more to the table than Orton though.

It certainly is unfair to call a crowd who was hot the whole night a "bad" crowd just because it didn't suit your fancy. I HATED watching Cena win last night, but it doesn't take away from the overall PPV. Anyone but Cena is usually my PPV motto, and obviously I'm disappointed as a fan on a personal level, but I'm not going to let that effect how I feel about an overall PPV just because Cena wins again.

Like I said, to each his own.

Just because you didn't enjoy the smarky croud doesn't mean they ruined the show, or took away from the matches. The most Iconic crowds are usually the smarkiest. Cena/RVD Hammerstein Ballroom anyone? Probably the most Iconic crowd ever, smarkiest as well.

I would argue the crowd at ONS 05 was more smarky and more iconic than ONS 06, but I get your point. Still, those were two special, isolated incidents. The only reason they're iconic is because they stand out because of having such different opinions.

 

[The Holy One]

I don't take the crowd reaction that special at all. As a Punk fan, I find him WAY better as a heel than a face and should remain that way for a long time to come. The Smackdown before EC he got the biggest heat from all of the heels in the big tag team match. Some crowds are just different than most, it happens. I don't mind it that much as long as I enjoy what I'm watching in the ring (I sure did last night by the way). I doubt creative or the wrestlers take it into account on the few crowds that are different unless in special cases in which the crowds are the majority in cheering for the heel like Orton and Austin.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Ok, so I want to take this discussion in a mildly different direction, and thank you all for helping me start to formulate what could very well be my next Op Ed for Wrestlezone.com. You're all begging a great question regarding the role of the crowd and the existance of a babyface / heel struggle. Someone even brought up the concept of the Dungeon's & Dragons alignment, which no lie, is something I'd considered while reading the first page of this thread. (Yes, I was invovled with "D&D" in middle and high school. I'm like Chaz from Airheads.)

But let me offer this question - what's the big deal?

I feel like fans specifically are getting far too wrapped up in who is a face, who is a heel, and who should be what. In MMA - the other sporting entertainment in which the athletes do not play for geographically assigned 'teams,' fans decide who their 'faces and heels' are anyway. Georges St. Pierre is the consummate babyface, whereas his recent opponent in Josh Koscheck is the brash, cocky heel. Sure, they play that bit up an awful lot, but at the end of the day, both of them have the same goals.

Win fights. Win titles. Make money.

It's only slightly different in pro wrestling. The bookers decide who's going to win the fights, but in essenece, the only REASON for anyone to want to be a professional wrestler is exactly the same.

Win fights. Win titles. Make money.

So what if one guy does it all clean cut with a bright purple shirt on? So what if one guy does it with a brainwashed cult of followers? Who gives a shit what one guy's "tendencies" are. Isn't the goal the same? Why worry so much about manipulating the emotions of the crowd? Why overanalyze ONE market? I live in NJ, one of the most passionate and most smarky markets in the world. We cheer who we want to cheer. But at the end of the day, the goal for Cena, Punk, Orton, etc. is the same.

Win fights. Win titles. Make money.

I am not really an expert on MMA or wrestling but I feel that the difference between the two is that winning fights, titles and making money is the reality in MMA while in pro wrestling it is the kayfabe reality. Pro Wrestling, in my opinion, is exactly like theatre or movies the fight for money and titles just serves as a medium to show the struggle between good and evil.

MMA is not a struggle between good and evil. Some people might favor a certain competitor over another but at the end of the day it is merely an athletic contest based on strength and skill. You do not go into an MMA fight expecting to feel good after watching it but you do go into a pro wrestling event expecting to see good triumph over evil. In MMA the thing that hooks you to it is the fight itself while in pro wrestling it is the story that is supposed to hook you.

So whenever you are telling a story there should be a clear cut definition of the characters available. It is not that they should all be just good or just bad but the fact is that even the shades of grey should be clearly defined.

I understand how smarky crowds feel and I myself am not a huge fan of Cena. But if you are cheering the work of a heel in the crowd then what you are doing is disrespecting the work of your favorite wrestler.

 

[GetsHeat]

It was just a smarky PPV crowd, it happens about every PPV, you get a loud group of fans chanting for a heel. Happens to Jericho, Punk, etc

The only reason Orton turned face was because they tried to turn Dibiase into a sympathetic character and it blew up in their faces. Nobody wanted to cheer for his generic ass so the fans cheered for Orton.

 

[PangCake54]

Not yet. Orton is somewhat of tweener. He still aid face but his tactics are not what face usually do. (blindside opponent from behind) if anything Orton is an anti-hero. Fans started cheer for him when they begin to realized he can do it without the Legacy. He cut his tie with Tedd and Cody after mania and that propelled him to be a fan favorite. CM Punk right now is just straight heel. Untill he does something like Orton (ditch his group) he isnt a face or tweener yet. Heel get over fans by doing what they do and sell it damn well. Remember Late Eddie used to be heel. fans started cheer for him slowly making him a fan fav then eventually face? Same with Cena, when he started his rapper gimmick, he was picking fight with fan fav like Taker, Rey, Eddie and so forth. When fans started to catch on to him, they started to cheer for him and eventually turn face before mania against JBL. I agree with most of the fans here. Punk better off being a heel.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree here, but I am a firm believer of to each his own.

For this, to each his own. Nothing wrong with someone enjoying or not enjoying a smarky crowd, but I don't think it should effect you opinion of the show. I'm not put off when a crowd pops hard for Cena, just like, imo, you shouldn't be put off when a crowd pops for Punk. you can prefer the other one all you'd like, but if you let it effect your overall opinion of the show that I think you're taking it a bit too far.

You have a high opinion of Oakland. Higher than most anyway.

It's not that I have a high opinion of Oakland, cause I don't. Oakland is a shit hole, take that from someone who lives within a 15 mile radius of Oaktown. It's not just an "Oakland" crowd though, there are a lot of surrounding city's that go to that show. It's more of a Northern California crowd, so yeah, people insulting my home town is not gonna sit well with me. I mean, your making a Charger fan defend Oakland here, that tells you all you need to know.

These are fair assessments, but it also could be because there are a bunch of smarks in the audience and they manage to hit a louder volume than the rest of the audience.

Blaming everything on smarks is just too much of a generalization, it's like taking the easy way out.

Again, as someone who lives in the same area as the people who attended this show, I feel I have a pretty good idea of the typical Bay Area ProWrestling fan.

It's truly not about the smarks with an Oakland crowd, it's about the people and what they relate too.

Oakland, as I said in a spam friendly version of this thread, is a top 5 American Murder city, Crime out the asshole, and minorities at every turn.

Oakland has a HUGE Mexican/Hispanic population = Del Rio pop

Oakland sure as hell isn't going to cheer the great white superhero John Cena, when he's the furthest thing any of them can relate too.

Oakland had been getting screwed by old white guys for years, there goes The Kings pop.

All I'm saying is it's far too easy to generalize everything and everyone as a smark, take a deeper look at most situations and you'll see it's more than just booing because a bunch of guys on the internet said to do it.

If CM Punk winds up turning face because he feuded with Orton that would tickle me in a way you usually have to pay extra for.

1 pop on 1 PPV isn't going to forever change the landscape of the WWE, and it's not going to turn Punk face either. Punk gets cheered because he's a highly entertaining bastard, and he shit all over that stupid seizure viper gimmick. It was entertaining, and the people cheered.

Hey man, I like CM Punk and what he's doing, but Cena has been brilliant for the past few months and I'm marking for him hard lately, and my testicles have been descended for at least a week now. I will agree with you that CM Punk brings much more to the table than Orton though.

You may prefer Cena to Punk, but Punk is definitely being targeted to the adults, Intentionally or not. I can't take Cena seriously, it's always a big joke with him. Until he decides to cut a SUPER SERIOUS promo, in which I find that even harder to believe, since he's always walking around cutting downright ******ed promos like the "Fruity Pebbles" last night. Believe it or not, that promo was actually fruiter than the Pebbles.

Like I said, to each his own.

Indeed, unless your letting the crowd dictate how you feel about the show, in which case your taking it too far.

I would argue the crowd at ONS 05 was more smarky and more iconic than ONS 06, but I get your point. Still, those were two special, isolated incidents. The only reason they're iconic is because they stand out because of having such different opinions.

They still stand out more than the average complacent, compliant, cheer for the good guys, not because we want to, but because we're told to crowd.

The Smarky crowd is always the better crowd, as it draws more attention to the program, it gains a bigger reaction from the fans, and it get's talked about on the internet. The smarky crowd forces you to think a little bit, or to just fall into the same cycle as labeling everyone who doesn't cheer Cena a Smark.

These people show up because they enjoy the product, trust me, most of the Oakland population can't afford to waste 60 bucks on a ticket just to boo John Cena. These people are going to be entertained, and they make the most of that 60 dollar ticket. You see it as a "smarky" crowd. I see it as an entertaining crowd, a crowd that adds something to the show that's not normally there. These people love pro wrestling, and they let you know about it.

Labeling everyone as smarks is simply a generalization taking the easy way out. The crowd was hot, and probably the best crowd so far this year, they where into the show from start to finish, who cares if they weren't into the same guys as you, they where into it, they brought energy and made the show better.

 

[Papa Pillman]

No fucking way. The Oakland crowd was super ******* and was just being super smarky. What do they know, they cheer for the Raiders. Anything this crowd cheered for should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is laced with so much illogical stupidity that I could barely hope to address it with one post.

All I could think during the PPV last night was that the crowd was the best and most alive crowd at a WWE event in a very long time. They provided an excellent "involvement element". Yet you're criticizing them for being perhaps dominated by "smart fans"? Seriously?????

Most WWE crowds are jokes. Their reactions are dominated by children for god's sake. They Boo who they are "supposed-to-Boo"; they cheer who they are "supposed-to-cheer"; they chant what they "supposed-to-chant". That takes all the personality and interaction out of the show.

Where the WWE gets it wrong is they think any Heel who becomes "mega-over" must instantaneously be a face. That is ridiculous. If a large portion of your crowd is behind a very heel character- then that just shows how great he is at what he does, and he should be allowed to continue to do it.

CM Punk is THE REASON to watch WWE events right now, he is the best worker in the company- heel or face. That means fans who understand the business are going to cheer for him, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Leave Punk heel, but don't criticize amazing crowds like the one in Oakland last night for buying their tickets, showing up, and cheering who they think deserves it; not who the powers-that-be want the kiddies to cheer for.

 

[Jason Scene]

Just on the Oakland crowd, they were also pro-Barrett and pro-McIntyre after Drew threw Rey into the pod; which he seemed to botch by the way.

So it could have been that they were a bit of a pro-heel city overall.

And I heard a miniature "Holy shit!" chant last night. Which was awesome to hear, even though it was like ten people chanting it.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Two things I have to add...

1. Punk getting cheers over Orton is the best possible thing that could happen for both men. Why? Because the people cheering for Punk over Orton weren't Orton fans anyway. Making them Punk fans opens up a revenue stream. Now, all of a sudden despite being a heel, Punk can sell some merchandise. Orton's merch will STILL move at a top-5 rate, but now Punk can move some too. All because he appealed to a niche of the audience. This isn't the onld days anymore where EVERYONE owned either a Hogan, a Warrior, or a Savage shirt.

2. This HAS to open everyone up to the value of Vickie Guerrero, and by extension, heel managers. Heel managers, I am learning, have an amazing intrinsic value in that they never actually have to "man up" for lack of a better term. A main event heel champion who is always a coward and a cheater a) gets old quick, and b) creates no buzz. In today's product, even the heel champions need a degree of legitimacy. Mick Foley put Edge, Triple H, and Randy Orton over in hardcore environment matches pretty clean, and it helped their heat as actual threats to a world title. The heel managers never have to get that. They can be obnoxious, dastardly, etc. and it never detracts from their character.

 

[steven87gill]

This is complete and total bullshit. You're wrong, plain and simple. Fans do not start cheering a heel because he isn't good at what he does. You can criticize Orton all day for not being an overly entertaining babyface, but what you just described shows how blind your hatred for the guy is. Fans started marking out for the guy because he's the anti-Cena, and he's good at what he does. Is he the best inside of the ring? No. Is the best on the mic? No. But his character was/is unpredictable, violent and something different from the other guys out there right now.

Smarky crowd tonight, and until I see Punk get the same kind of reaction in a different city or part of the country, I remain skeptical. It's not out of the realm of possibility for Punk to go the route of Austin and Orton (being a good enough heel to actually start getting cheered), but I need to see more. Like Orton, I prefer Punk as a heel, but if it's going to happen, it's going to happen.

Just as an aside, the reason Orton is a much better babyface than what people on here were expecting is because they haven't really altered his onscreen character, he's still an asshole basically (i mean that in the nicest possible way) it's just that now he's doing to the heels what he was doing to the faces. It would be no different with Punk.

 

[Jay85]

If people want to cheer, let them, but keep CM Punk a heel. He is one of the best "bad guys" to come along in a while. I hate to make an Attitude Era reference, but Stone Cold never really turned face. His character remained the same (except for that singing, hugging thing). I like the CM Punk character, and feel the only thing that should happen soon is him becoming WWE champion, because he can carry a company.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Okay okay okay, I know I'm making a mistake engaging the Debate-League Champion in an argument.

Right, I suppose I should hide in shame for winning that tournament. Not be so confrontational? Read ridiculous theories that come from blind hate, and keep quiet? Not a chance, my man.

His heel work was okay until he started getting too bland and losing any interesting aspect about his character, which is what could be said for most heels.

If he was becoming "bland" in his heel work, it was because he was feuding with Cena over and over again. And why was that? Because no one else on the roster was good enough to take that spot. Punk was definitely good enough on the mic (another opinion of yours which doesn't seem all that popular), but he had his own thing going on.

I suppose I could have been wrong with the botched face turn for DiBiase and Rhodes, but I'm not the first poster around here to have cited that theory.

That's fine, they were wrong too

And I'll have you know, I've never liked Orton, and I don't care if the IWC didn't see how bland he was until he turned face. He just never did anything for me, and now the masses are starting to see why.

They are? Hmm, that's interesting, seeing he's still getting the biggest face reacion (along with Cena) in the entire company.

No, Steve Austin was not bad at his job, but he wasn't booked to put over two younger heels and turn them into faces either. In fact, one could argue that the WWF was trying to make him into this new type of character that, despite being bad, was in a way good. Now there's no way of me or any of us proving this, but I don't doubt Vince McMahon having the creative insight to create such a character.

Austin turning started in an organic fashion, end of story. Maybe Vince picked up on it (how couldn't he?), but it wasn't planned in advance.

And as far as Orton goes, the cheers didn't start with Rhodes/DiBiase screwing him. They started (somewhat) against Cena, and continued against Sheamus. The fans had a choice between two heels, Sheamus and Orton, and they chose Orton.

And he was still a heel when he challenged Sheamus at the Royal Rumble. Rhodes and DiBiase interfered in the number one contender's match to get him that spot, and we were treated to a super boring heel vs. heel championship match.

He got a decent face reaction on a couple of Raws leading up to the Rumble, including his victory over Chris Masters. The crowd went nuts for the RKO in that match long before Sheamus came out and put Orton on his ass. Also, Orton got a face reaction on his way to the ring against Sheamus at the Rumble, before Legacy got involved. So again, not trying to be an ass here, but you're wrong.

Just kidding, this is the internet, and it gave this lowly fan a voice! Orton objectively sucks. The only thing he does well right now is his super-Orton shtick, and anyone can do that well if given the opportunity. When it comes to wrestling I can list at least 10 guys who are better than Orton. If mic skills capture your fancy, I can list about 15 guys better than Orton. If it comes to provoking the crowd... well Orton is pretty good at that, but by no means the best, and I could name no less than 5 guys who are better than he.

Objectively? I don't think so.

I would concede this point to you if we were towards the beginning of Orton's face run, but as I said, the days of selfish and exceedingly violent Orton are behind us. He's not as squeaky-clean as Cena, but he's really lost all the "I'm crazy and I don't give a fuck" vibes he gave off during the early part of his face run. What's the last thing he did that was something John Cena wouldn't do? I think you'd have to reach pretty far back into your memory to figure that one out.

We're talking about how he turned, and why he turned, as it relates to what may or may not be happening with CM Punk. What's happening right now with Orton isn't really important to this conversation. How it began is the main point.

And yet, they still took away his promo cutting privileges, thus depriving the world of the voice of a generation, a schizophrenic, monotone generation.

I have no idea why he doesn't talk, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the whole "no talk, get in done in the ring" type character. I don't like it, and it doesn't work. They had enough confidence to let the guy cut promo after promo while leading Legacy, feuding with Taker, HBK, HHH, and countless others. They know he can work the mic (even if you don't), so his recent silence is somewhat odd to me.

CM Punk isn't a bad ass. CM Punks is a coward who uses his brainwashed followers to help him procure favorable positions. Do you think Charles Manson was a bad ass? How about Jim Jones? When I think of bad ass, I think of a Stone Cold type of character. CM Punk is nothing like Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Ok, fine. They why would they cheer him? Probably because they think he's better than most of his face opponents, same with Orton and Austin. You're making this way too complicated, and I guess to get your Orton-sucks point across you would need to.

If Punk turns face, which is still very premature to even consider, I won't have a problem with it. Like Orton, he's much better as a heel, but when the fans like the work someone is doing, they might start cheering the guy. Punk is the best heel in the business right now, and I hope he stays in that role. But it's up to the fans, and I won't complain either way.

 

[JGlass]

Right, I suppose I should hide in shame for winning that tournament. Not be so confrontational? Read ridiculous theories that come from blind hate, and keep quiet? Not a chance, my man.

I wasn't asking you to hide it or be ashamed. In fact, the reason I brought it up was so people would know that you are the debate league winner and that they should pay attention to this as it's bound to be full of good stuff. No need to be offended sir, I applaud you on your accomplishment.

If he was becoming "bland" in his heel work, it was because he was feuding with Cena over and over again. And why was that? Because no one else on the roster was good enough to take that spot. Punk was definitely good enough on the mic (another opinion of yours which doesn't seem all that popular), but he had his own thing going on.

I also don't think the WWE knew how good Punk was yet, hence why they stuck him on Smackdown in feuds he almost always lost. Also, Randy Orton's feud with John Cena isn't as long as you might think, and it only lasted from July to October. It just felt longer because of how bad Randy Orton is.

That's fine, they were wrong too

Not to drag KB's name into the mud with me, but I'm pretty sure he also thinks that Orton's face turn was a botched angle.

They are? Hmm, that's interesting, seeing he's still getting the biggest face reacion (along with Cena) in the entire company.

Because he's being booked as this unstoppable, awesome force. I wasn't watching wrestling when Cena first started to become the wrestler he is today, but I would imagine he still managed to keep the fans on his side for a while before they got fed up with him. Maybe we're in the beginning stages of seeing that with Orton as people start to cheer Punk over him?

Austin turning started in an organic fashion, end of story. Maybe Vince picked up on it (how couldn't he?), but it wasn't planned in advance.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were part of WWF Creative when all of this was happening.

And as far as Orton goes, the cheers didn't start with Rhodes/DiBiase screwing him. They started (somewhat) against Cena, and continued against Sheamus. The fans had a choice between two heels, Sheamus and Orton, and they chose Orton.

Around that time there were audiences that would cheer Hornswoggle over John Cena. Furthermore, choosing one heel over another is all well and good, but it doesn't mean as much since it's really just picking the lesser of two evils.

He got a decent face reaction on a couple of Raws leading up to the Rumble, including his victory over Chris Masters. The crowd went nuts for the RKO in that match long before Sheamus came out and put Orton on his ass. Also, Orton got a face reaction on his way to the ring against Sheamus at the Rumble, before Legacy got involved. So again, not trying to be an ass here, but you're wrong.

I can't really argue any of this, but he was still a heel and was treated as such most nights by most crowds. A few isolated events make little difference.

Objectively? I don't think so.

No, he objectively sucks, just like how The Kings of Leon objectively suck. Just because I hate them both doesn't mean they can't objectively suck. I might not be objective in my dismissal of them, but that doesn't mean they don't objectively suck. Orton is dull on the mic, unimpressive in the ring, and he has lost anything that made him stand out early in his face run. It's like how one would argue The Ultimate Warrior objectively sucked. He was bad on the mic, unimpressive in the ring, and the only thing that kept him over was the way he was booked.

We're talking about how he turned, and why he turned, as it relates to what may or may not be happening with CM Punk. What's happening right now with Orton isn't really important to this conversation. How it began is the main point.

I agree, but you're the one who indulged this side-convo.

I have no idea why he doesn't talk, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the whole "no talk, get in done in the ring" type character. I don't like it, and it doesn't work. They had enough confidence to let the guy cut promo after promo while leading Legacy, feuding with Taker, HBK, HHH, and countless others. They know he can work the mic (even if you don't), so his recent silence is somewhat odd to me.

Probably because they realize he can only cut the exact same promo 143 times before people get wise to his game.

Ok, fine. They why would they cheer him? Probably because they think he's better than most of his face opponents, same with Orton and Austin. You're making this way too complicated, and I guess to get your Orton-sucks point across you would need to.

I can agree with that. The part where he's better than his face opponents, not the part about the Orton-sucks point being hard to get across. Still, there needs to be a catalyst that ultimately makes CM Punk tolerable to root for. Otherwise he'll just keep getting cheap, empty, meaningless face pops from a small portion of crowds.

If Punk turns face, which is still very premature to even consider, I won't have a problem with it. Like Orton, he's much better as a heel, but when the fans like the work someone is doing, they might start cheering the guy. Punk is the best heel in the business right now, and I hope he stays in that role. But it's up to the fans, and I won't complain either way.

I will have a problem with it. Yes, the fans like what the fans like, and I'm okay with that, but CM Punk is SO good as a heel that we would be deprived of some amazing stuff if he were to turn face. That's why Orton being face doesn't bother me so much, because he would be just as shitty if he were heel.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

This is the last response I'm giving. I'm struggling to even mention Punk at this point, so I'll be moving on.

I wasn't asking you to hide it or be ashamed. In fact, the reason I brought it up was so people would know that you are the debate league winner and that they should pay attention to this as it's bound to be full of good stuff. No need to be offended sir, I applaud you on your accomplishment.

Right on. Thought you were being a wise-ass.

Also, Randy Orton's feud with John Cena isn't as long as you might think, and it only lasted from July to October. It just felt longer because of how bad Randy Orton is.

This is so biased and blind, it's laughable. I could say the same thing about how well Cena did in that feud..but I won't.

Not to drag KB's name into the mud with me, but I'm pretty sure he also thinks that Orton's face turn was a botched angle.

Good for him. Even if it were a botched angle (which it wasn't), wouldn't that be the booking departments fault? We talk on here constantly about how the WWE is a very controlled environment, scripted promos, etc., and has been for quite a few years now. Whenever someone criticizes Cena for anything, 30 people jump in and say how great he is, and a few usually mention how his cheesy promos are a result of scripting, making sure no one believes it's his fault. And they're right. So in turn, it's not Orton's fault either.

Because he's being booked as this unstoppable, awesome force. I wasn't watching wrestling when Cena first started to become the wrestler he is today, but I would imagine he still managed to keep the fans on his side for a while before they got fed up with him. Maybe we're in the beginning stages of seeing that with Orton as people start to cheer Punk over him?

Maybe, and that's fine with me. Heel Orton > Face Orton.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were part of WWF Creative when all of this was happening.

Didn't need to be, I watched it happen. Austin would do the worst, most evil shit to people, and the fans didn't care. They loved it. When you book someone to be completely evil, that doesn't scream "face turn." It was organic, not matter how hard you try and spin it.

Around that time there were audiences that would cheer Hornswoggle over John Cena. Furthermore, choosing one heel over another is all well and good, but it doesn't mean as much since it's really just picking the lesser of two evils.

Orton was less evil (kayfabe) than Sheamus? Sheamus hadn't been around long enough to be as evil as Orton, so this doesn't hold water. They chose who they thought was more talented.

I can't really argue any of this, but he was still a heel and was treated as such most nights by most crowds. A few isolated events make little difference.

Little difference? That's how it STARTS! A few crowds here and there, a few more, a few more...then BOOM!..he's getting huge pops in every arena in the country.

No, he objectively sucks, just like how The Kings of Leon objectively suck. Just because I hate them both doesn't mean they can't objectively suck. I might not be objective in my dismissal of them, but that doesn't mean they don't objectively suck. Orton is dull on the mic, unimpressive in the ring, and he has lost anything that made him stand out early in his face run. It's like how one would argue The Ultimate Warrior objectively sucked. He was bad on the mic, unimpressive in the ring, and the only thing that kept him over was the way he was booked.

Totally disagree. I love his slow, methodical style, inflicting as much pain as possible. I understand those with ADD might find him boring because he doesn't do flippies, but that's not his fault. Oh, and I'm being totally subjective..see how that works?

Probably because they realize he can only cut the exact same promo 143 times before people get wise to his game.

He's subtle, and some people would rather have their superstars jump around like 12 year olds, screaming and yelling about this and that. I like Ortons style, and obviously the WWE did as well, or he wouldn't be where he is today. You don't get this far by completely sucking at everything you do, it's not possible.

I can agree with that. The part where he's better than his face opponents, not the part about the Orton-sucks point being hard to get across. Still, there needs to be a catalyst that ultimately makes CM Punk tolerable to root for. Otherwise he'll just keep getting cheap, empty, meaningless face pops from a small portion of crowds.

Meaningless pops aren't meaningless at all. A pop is a pop.

I will have a problem with it. Yes, the fans like what the fans like, and I'm okay with that, but CM Punk is SO good as a heel that we would be deprived of some amazing stuff if he were to turn face. That's why Orton being face doesn't bother me so much, because he would be just as shitty if he were heel.

If Punk turns face, the WWE will live on. He won't be nearly as interesting, but they will survive. I hope this was an isolated incident because I love Punk as a heel. But if it's not, the world will probably survive.

 

[Tech N9ne]

No. Do not turn Punk. It is a horrible idea. He is starting to take his place as not only RAW, but WWE's main Heel.

It didn't start with Orton. Heels that have appeal to many people have always gotten cheered. Chris Jericho is very OVER as a Heel. But, he would still have people cheer him, and chant "Y2J".

I think Punk is fine where he is at and is one of the last people that need a change or a reinvention.

 

[Calderownz]

A year back the crowd started turning Rnady Orton face. no matter what he did, the boos got smaller and the cheers got louder. Now, around a year later the same thing is happening with CM Punk. When he debuted on Raw it was a pretty mixed reaction, when he got injured and began commentating, he was basically a face (remember the cheers when he read the mystery GM email), and since he returned to the ring the CM Punk chants have been getting bigger. Tonight according the WZ live results " The crowd begins to chant "CM PUNK!" as Orton exits the chamber." Now I don't know if Oakland is a pro heel city or a pro Punk city but regardless the Second City Saint is getting some serious face reactions.

My question is should CM Punk turn face sometime in the somewhat immediate future (1-6 months)?

For me hell yeah. Drop the dead weight of nexus and start winning again.

How about you? Discuss.

Absolutely not. Raw needs a hot heel and CM Punk fills that role quite nicely. Furthermore, he still gets a mixed reaction at best. That just means he needs to dig into the crowd a bit more and do his job as a heel. Get them to hate him.

He's talented enough that if he were to ever turn face, it'd work. Right now, the heel thing is working.

Make it last.