So who was right? CM Punk or Triple H? Or were both assholes?
- Thread starter mizowns
- Start date
Both are in the wrong. HHH has been known to play politics far too often. Punk has a bad attitude. Clearly they were destined to butt heads. However, if CM Punk really wanted to be heard, he should have sought legal counsel the second he found out about the staff infection. He should have sought counsel the second they forced him to work after giving him doctors clearing over the phone. He didn't have to sue, just threaten them.
The situation was already bad but fans make the situation worse. Half the fans say HHH is an egotistical, burying asshole. Half say Punk is a selfish asshole. Regardless both of them share one quality - they're both assholes and that's why the situation sucks.
The situation was already bad but fans make the situation worse. Half the fans say HHH is an egotistical, burying asshole. Half say Punk is a selfish asshole. Regardless both of them share one quality - they're both assholes and that's why the situation sucks.
Very well said. I totally agree with that.
Both Punk and Triple H were acting like little girls. Assholes with ego that hurt the company in the long run.
After listening to the Punk podcast, the WWE really comes off in a bad light. I can 100% buy in to the fact that Triple H is a master politician, following in the footsteps of his father in law. But, Punk has a reputation of being an asshole. Was anybody right? No. They were both in tough situations, and honestly they both should have worked harder to find a better solution. But instead, everybody was wrong, and everyone went the wrong way about fixing the problems. I lean more towards Punk, because I have seen a lot of instances showing that WWE executives care more about the company than the performers on their shows. But that's not to say Punk is completely innocent. I whole heartedly believe Vince and Triple H do everything they can to protect their assets, whether it's actually the right way to go about it or not. I'm more likely to believe that CM Punk is telling the truth, because he just doesn't care about what he says, than Triple H, who has an entire company to think about when he speaks. But in the end, everybody should forget the BS, man up, and put their focus where it really belongs- the fans!
Sexcellence of Sexecution
#SwerveKing
Great, another CM Punk thread.
The joke's on me because I'm commenting, but this thread will most likely get deleted anyways. Punk was in the right. Yes, there are two sides to every story but historically the WWE has treated it's employees pretty badly. Punk was hurt, burned out, treated with a lack of respect and he walked out. He's an independent contractor so that's his legal right...which is why he was able to successfully sue the company.
Honestly, if Punk was just angry about how he was booked following that angle with Cena at MITB in 2011 I'd still be 100% on his side, but compound everything else on top of that and it makes it that much worse. Think about this. He cut this promo that got fans excited and got people talking, worked a 5-star match with Cena at the next PPV. Then he jobs to Triple H a couple months later, and ultimately never gets his revenge on Kevin Nash for randomly returning to screw him out of the Title. It was almost a textbook example of how to kill a wrestler's momentum. Then for Mania 30, Punk is supposed to work with Triple H? I'd tell him to go fuck himself to. I'm a fan of Triple H as a wrestler and I'm not one of those people who throws around the word "buried". Punk definitely wasn't buried, he still had a Title run and a spot high on the card. But it's impossible to deny that Triple H was responsible for stunting Punk's momentum as a big time babyface. Punk had every right to be bitter about that and not trust him.
The joke's on me because I'm commenting, but this thread will most likely get deleted anyways. Punk was in the right. Yes, there are two sides to every story but historically the WWE has treated it's employees pretty badly. Punk was hurt, burned out, treated with a lack of respect and he walked out. He's an independent contractor so that's his legal right...which is why he was able to successfully sue the company.
Honestly, if Punk was just angry about how he was booked following that angle with Cena at MITB in 2011 I'd still be 100% on his side, but compound everything else on top of that and it makes it that much worse. Think about this. He cut this promo that got fans excited and got people talking, worked a 5-star match with Cena at the next PPV. Then he jobs to Triple H a couple months later, and ultimately never gets his revenge on Kevin Nash for randomly returning to screw him out of the Title. It was almost a textbook example of how to kill a wrestler's momentum. Then for Mania 30, Punk is supposed to work with Triple H? I'd tell him to go fuck himself to. I'm a fan of Triple H as a wrestler and I'm not one of those people who throws around the word "buried". Punk definitely wasn't buried, he still had a Title run and a spot high on the card. But it's impossible to deny that Triple H was responsible for stunting Punk's momentum as a big time babyface. Punk had every right to be bitter about that and not trust him.
pat patterson quit the job due to hunter and his politicking. there exists enough interviews, shoots, books, and legitimate insider information to write a 500 page book on the bullshit that hunter is known for. perhaps no wrestler, not even hulk hogan, has derailed as many careers as hunter has. funny how nobody has anything negative to say about taker, very little about bret (usually clique guys) but when it comes to hunter its an avalanche of complaints.
now cm punk can be a pos, there is evidence for that too. but far lesser evil here is punk. unlike the other geeks on that roster, he at least is smart enough to see through wwe's bullshit
now cm punk can be a pos, there is evidence for that too. but far lesser evil here is punk. unlike the other geeks on that roster, he at least is smart enough to see through wwe's bullshit
Last Man Standing
LMS is a dumb name. Sorry.
Who's to say anybody is an asshole? Both are proud men whom believe in their convictions. Not everybody has to get along with everyone. But I think Triple H said it best when he said that both sides looking back could and should have handled themselves differently.
I will say as a huge Punk fan, he does come across as spoiled sometimes. But if he wasn't happy, he had every right to walk away.
Let's completely ignore the whole accusations of homosexual harassment.
I will say as a huge Punk fan, he does come across as spoiled sometimes. But if he wasn't happy, he had every right to walk away.
Let's completely ignore the whole accusations of homosexual harassment.
I have to agree, great another CM Punk thread. Because I'm a glutton for punished I will post anyway. Voted for the third option, they were both assholes. And I've made that assumption on just what I've seen and heard.
Punk should just have kept his mouth shut. He managed to for a number of months but the drama queen inside was too much to bear and the floodgates opened. Now maybe he did have an axe to grind with the WWE, but it should have been done through the proper channels. Hire a lawyer if you were treated unfairly and have a judge decide who's right and wrong. I find the timing of Punk's podcast very suspicious though. He says nothing for months, then goes to Cabana, starts a shitstorm, and then we hear he's signed with UFC.
Makes you wonder if it wasn't to keep his name relevant for the UFC signing. Only Punk and Cabana know and they won't say, but looks weird to me.
HHH on the other hand has had plenty said about him and not all of it good. To give him his due in this situation though, he and the WWE did keep their mouth's shut as well. It was only after Punk opened his that the WWE had to play ball.
Both men clearly have huge ego's and if it's a case of one trying to outdo the other, then neither will win. In the end they will both lose because people will begin too tune out. In some cases the less said the better.
Punk should just have kept his mouth shut. He managed to for a number of months but the drama queen inside was too much to bear and the floodgates opened. Now maybe he did have an axe to grind with the WWE, but it should have been done through the proper channels. Hire a lawyer if you were treated unfairly and have a judge decide who's right and wrong. I find the timing of Punk's podcast very suspicious though. He says nothing for months, then goes to Cabana, starts a shitstorm, and then we hear he's signed with UFC.
Makes you wonder if it wasn't to keep his name relevant for the UFC signing. Only Punk and Cabana know and they won't say, but looks weird to me.
HHH on the other hand has had plenty said about him and not all of it good. To give him his due in this situation though, he and the WWE did keep their mouth's shut as well. It was only after Punk opened his that the WWE had to play ball.
Both men clearly have huge ego's and if it's a case of one trying to outdo the other, then neither will win. In the end they will both lose because people will begin too tune out. In some cases the less said the better.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Punk is mainly in the wrong.
I don't think Punk would be happy no matter what WWE did, because Punk didn't seem to ever be happy with anything.
Punk is ungrateful. He was some guy in a high-flying league no-one but the IWC care about, to become a superstar in the biggest company in the world. He decided not wrestle because of the money he made working for the company, yet he bit the hand that fed him.
He is like Bret Hart, Ultimate Warrior and others. They bitch and moan, and piss on anything WWE gave them (and WWE made them stars, as they weren't already massive stars beforehand). But then, when the money runs out, they want the DVD money, they want the Legends contract, and come crawling back. Punk will be the same.
My biggest problem is that, not once, has Punk ever said that he could have handled things better. It is 100% everyone else's fault.At least Triple H said that they tried to help him, but Punk doesn't appreciate it because he is a self-entitled prick.
Logisticalbooker86
Pre-Show Stalwart
My biggest problem is that your closing statement could not be more wrong. Punk acknowledged at the opening side of his story on Colt Cobana's podcast that he was an asshole and he could've handled things better.
Does this excuse his actions? No, but you could at least try to be more accurate when you jump on your WWE is wonderful and we as fans should accept anything they feed us high horse.
At this point, other than correcting misinformation, I could not care less. Both parties were wrong at various points in the saga, but both have (seemingly) moved on.
I wish both CM Punk and WWE well.
Ric 'The Nature Boy' Flair
#PUSHCESARO
Punk was right, triple h has that reputation and punk could've died
CyberPunk
The Show himself
I thought all of this was done and dusted. Anyway, I'll comment before this thread closes because I am a sucker for this kinda thread.
So, who was wrong? Frankly speaking, I don't know. Punk comes off as a self-righteous prick who could've handled things better. On the other hand, WWE did few things they should've done differently. As far as the whole staph infection thing goes, WWE were totally in the wrong there. And this is not the only case. We've heard and read about so many others. Which are true and which are not is anybody's guess.
One thing which I agreed with Punk was the real lack of foresight. Why? If you have ever worked in a corporate environment, you'd have noticed that bottomline is not always everything. It is more to do with appeasing all your stakeholders which eventually leads to short sighted decisions and no long term planning. Mix that up with politics and upper management's views on skewed numbers and the results would always be unsatisfactory. I've seen enough people turn sour and bitter over time to the point that they become unpleasant to be around. I am sure that not everything that Punk said was true, but to some extent, what transpired on screen showed their lack of foresight regarding how to build a talent up or what to work with.
In business, everyone wants to protect their interests. Some go about it in the wrong way. And when you have clash of massive egos, you'll probably have a Triple H vs Punk scenario.
So, who was wrong? Frankly speaking, I don't know. Punk comes off as a self-righteous prick who could've handled things better. On the other hand, WWE did few things they should've done differently. As far as the whole staph infection thing goes, WWE were totally in the wrong there. And this is not the only case. We've heard and read about so many others. Which are true and which are not is anybody's guess.
One thing which I agreed with Punk was the real lack of foresight. Why? If you have ever worked in a corporate environment, you'd have noticed that bottomline is not always everything. It is more to do with appeasing all your stakeholders which eventually leads to short sighted decisions and no long term planning. Mix that up with politics and upper management's views on skewed numbers and the results would always be unsatisfactory. I've seen enough people turn sour and bitter over time to the point that they become unpleasant to be around. I am sure that not everything that Punk said was true, but to some extent, what transpired on screen showed their lack of foresight regarding how to build a talent up or what to work with.
In business, everyone wants to protect their interests. Some go about it in the wrong way. And when you have clash of massive egos, you'll probably have a Triple H vs Punk scenario.
rmp0012002
Championship Contender
It really became a he said she said deal that anyone not involved can't really say who was wrong. Punk was known to have an attitude but HHH has had his massive ego going back to the Cliq and now with the backing of his father in law. Vince and HHH have to toe the company line as ownership but Punk could talk as himself. Punk was making great money as was the WWE so it should have been worked out before everything turned catty but this is pro wrestling and a swerve can happen at any time.
ADLegend21
Sucker for Stables
Punk is self admittedly an asshole, it's why he loves being a heel, because he's good at it. Hunter is incredibly petty though to the point where former DX Members were fed up with him. It's not just with Punk. Chyna isn't in the HOF because she did porn post WWE, but they put her in Playboy when she was IN the company. He promised to put over Curtis Axel and didn't and now look at him. Punk was at least honest about wanting to make WWE better but he could do only so much as a talent. I lean to Punk on this but it couldn't been handled better by both him and Hunter, but Hunter/WWE fucked up big time.
whoopin' ass
Championship Contender
WWE/HHH is in the wrong. Look at the wwe in the last year - nothing has changed. All the creative issues that Punk brought up were issues fans had before he left and still have now. Just look at the Rumble - they tried to do the same thing as last year but with Reigns inplace of Batista and got the same response. Now they are doing the same thing - putting Bryan into the main event even though it makes so sense from a story idea. Punk wasn't the issue this year so why has nothing changed?
MWRedskins
Mid-Card Championship Winner
CM Punk was right in the sense that Batista going to WM was a bad move for business (if that was his issue) and was right in the sense that he should've been better booked, BUT i also think CM Punk was wrong in walking out. he should've talked this out with them and said, "you claim to listen to the fans, well, listen to the fans." so in my book, they both were in the wrong here. Punk shouldn't have walked out on the company like he did and WWE should've booked him and the Royal Rumble better.
sanefan_har
The Crimson Kestrel
Here's where I disagree. Punk actually kept his mouth shut about his reasons to walk out up until the podcast with Cabana. In the mean time, the WWE takes jabs at him during the Payback pay-per-view and avoids his calls about the royalty cheques.
As for who is wrong, well both of them. But if Punk was as arrogant as he claimed to be, he should have yelled at HHH when he suggested that he goes over Punk at Night of Champions. As for HHH, he needs to tell Vince McMahon that he's out of touch. It's high time.
I had to get caught up in 2014 so I missed whole CM Punk walking thing.
that said I think most of the issues could have been avoided if Punk just left after the Undertaker loss. Something I don't get is him going to UFC after complaining about all the injuries he had, excluding the staph infection that was on wwe.
that said I think most of the issues could have been avoided if Punk just left after the Undertaker loss. Something I don't get is him going to UFC after complaining about all the injuries he had, excluding the staph infection that was on wwe.
deadman talking
the proud intercontinental champion
cm punk and wwe were both wrong, but i think punk was more. he acts as if he should get what he wants at all times. if wwe wanted batista to headline wrestlemania than so be it. just do your job.
Everyone involved in this case is basically wrong to some extent.
CM Punk is wrong for walking out while being on a hell of a contract.
HHH (And management) are wrong for the mistreatment of a contracted employee.
Had management simply given proper medical attention and had Punk cut back on the over controlling ways he had with creative then I don't think we would be in a Punk-less WWE right now.
CM Punk is wrong for walking out while being on a hell of a contract.
HHH (And management) are wrong for the mistreatment of a contracted employee.
Had management simply given proper medical attention and had Punk cut back on the over controlling ways he had with creative then I don't think we would be in a Punk-less WWE right now.
