The Failure that is CM Punk

[klunderbunker]

Who else deserved to be in the scramble? Not a lot of people, the only longshot that I can come up with would be Kofi, but he's beyond a stretch. Perhaps someone like a Kendrick- A young guy that hasn't had the chance to prove himself. JBL has proved nothing at all but win one noteworthy gimmick match.

Yes those are bad reason. What about the fact that he was champion for a year? There wasn't one time in between where he could've chased the belt event for a month or so, just for a change of pace? That's why I got sick of him at least. It wsa the same thing over and over again, exactly like with JBL.

Not sure how, but Batista got the shot at GAB and was never pinned at all by Punk, nor was he pinned the next night on Raw.

Rey didn't deserve to be in the match at all. He was thrown in because of Cena's injury.

I think Kane got the match originally because he asked for it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that Punk beat JBL on Raw his first night as champion clean. Now you're saying that if Punk had help, which he did from the brawl that was going on, making it unclean. Which was it?

I don't use quotes like you do because honestly I don't know how to split them up like that.

At the time Jericho wasn't in the title picture. All he had was his feud with Michaels. Yes, he was getting the belt at Unforgiven, but at the time it looked to be a random loss for Punk, in his hometown. How does that make him look stronger?

Oh yet you understand it because I don't agree with you? He was booked badly as champion, and didn't respond very well to what little he was given. He was made to look as though he was never able to beat any main eventer other than JBL without help.

 

[Slyfox696]

Who else deserved to be in the scramble? Not a lot of people, the only longshot that I can come up with would be Kofi, but he's beyond a stretch. Perhaps someone like a Kendrick- A young guy that hasn't had the chance to prove himself. JBL has proved nothing at all but win one noteworthy gimmick match.

JBL winning one noteworthy match was more than anyone else had done. Why wouldn't he be in there?

Yes those are bad reason. What about the fact that he was champion for a year?

Came long after the bandwagon booing started.

Not sure how, but Batista got the shot at GAB and was never pinned at all by Punk, nor was he pinned the next night on Raw.

So? He was in the Unforgiven title match. He didn't win at GAB, and then beat John Cena and was in.

I think Kane got the match originally because he asked for it. Rey didn't deserve to be in the match at all.

And neither did anyone else.

Which is why JBL did. See what I'm saying now?

Now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that Punk beat JBL on Raw his first night as champion clean. Now you're saying that if Punk had help, which he did from the brawl that was going on, making it unclean. Which was it?

It's you not understanding what I'm saying.

Punk beat JBL clean, but only because JBL made a mistake, not because Punk was necessarily better than him or because someone else cost JBL the match. JBL lost because he lost focus on the match. But, at the same time, that doesn't make Punk look weak, because he never lost the match, and still got the 1-2-3.

I don't use quotes like you do because honestly I don't know how to split them up like that.

{quote}{/quote} only with the brackets.

At the time Jericho wasn't in the title picture. All he had was his feud with Michaels. Yes, he was getting the belt at Unforgiven, but at the time it looked to be a random loss for Punk, in his hometown. How does that make him look stronger?

I'm telling you how right now!

I mean, are you trying to tell me that the only impact that ever occurs only happens in an instantaneous moment that it occurs? Do you not understand what "long-term booking" means?

I've been telling you for the last several posts how it makes him look stronger. Chris Jericho is World Champion caliber. Losing to someone of World Champion caliber doesn't make you look weak.

I mean, did the Colts losing to the Patriots last year, make the Colts look weak?

Oh yet you understand it because I don't agree with you?

No, you don't seem to understand it, because you didn't even know what you were talking about.

He was booked badly as champion, and didn't respond very well to what little he was given.

The fuck he was.

He lost three times, two of which were completely realistic, and once to your current World Champion. He never relied on, nor asked for, help in his matches, but things happened to keep the "fluke" tag intact.

Just because he had a terrible run as champion, doesn't mean the booking wasn't good. They protected Punk incredibly well, and he still failed.

You're completely wrong on this one Klunder, and it's not even close.

 

[The Champ is here]

In my opinion WWE sucks right now..... it's like how it was in fall of 2004, everything is stale. None of the storylines this summer didn't make any sence and was just thrown together in 3 eposides. -except HBK vs. Y2J fued-
Speaking of Y2J.........

I agree wut slyfox said regarding Chris Jerico. However, to relate back to the thread of the Failure that is CM Punk....... is because CM Punk needs an athlete who is a heel to fued with in order to make him better as a superstar and champion. Looking back all he had to fued with was Batista and JBL. Now Batista is all power and No Mic and was a keyface while fueding with Punk. While JBL is all mic and lacks athlehicism and was a heel. but the reason why alot of fans think CM punk is a fraud is because Jbl and Batista are not athletes and could not carry a dramitic fued for a Guy like C.M. Punk.

Which is why i can see why they put the title on Jerico so that WWE can let C.M. Punk win it from Jerico making Punk not a freud champion and beating an athletic superstar who in addition has great mic skills will definally win over with the fans makeing Punk a Keyface.

-Did not like the way Jerico won it thou or How Punk lost it-

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

And, yes, I can tell a good reason from a bad reason. When people say they boo him because he only has five moves, or because he's a white rapper (2 years after that gimmick was gone), those are bad reasons.

Those are bad reasons to hate a superstar. Limited repetoire's didn't hurt Austin or Foley. But i have to agree with Klunker, Cena got booed because people were sick of him beating everybody that came his way, and next to none of them got more than one shot at him. He'd always get beaten on the Raw before a PPV and that was it, never again for the rest of the month. I personally hated Cena because i was sick of seeing him shoved down our throats when there is nothing special about him. Yes he's a work horse, the exact kind of wrestler vince wants etc etc, but on TV he's boring to listen to and throughout 2007, he was boring to watch. His match with Umaga at RR and HBK at WM were the only good matches i can think of.

Came long after the bandwagon booing started.

Well, it didn't really, because he was the champ for the majority of the previous year as well. Beating Edge 3 times when people genuinely wanted to see Edge flourish as the WWE champ was what sparked it imo.


In reference to a point made earlier, X-Pac heat is heat that a superstar gets regardless of what they do in storylines or in the ring. Once X-Pac turned on Kane in 1999, that was it for him, he remained heel most of the time, but even when he tried to turn face a couple of times, the fans were having none of it. The fans shut him down immediately. He could have put on a wrestling clinic like he once did with Bret Hart back in 94 or 95 i think it was, and he'd still have been booed out of the building.
Vickie Guerrero has X-Pac heat. After getting fucked around by Edge and re-instating Taker, she was still booed to high heaven. She isn't booed because everyone hates the character or because she can stir up so many hateful emotions through her promos, she's booed because she's fucking terrible! When she was T'lo's assistant, no one cared about her in the slightest, and when she turned heel, that was it for the character right there.
JBL does not have X-Pac heat. The guy has never done anything close to a face action since becoming JBL. His return to the ring sparked from costing Y2J the title, and has picked on Finlay and Hornswoggle and then tried to reclaim the WWE title since, while warring with the 2 top superstars in the under 15 years fan category. He's simply a great heel, not a great wrestler, not by a long shot, but definitely a great heel, it's why if he ain't wrestling that night, you're guaranteed to hear him talk.

What had he done, before Summerslam, to get one?

Batista gets repeated title shots because he is repeatedly screwed out of the title. In the last 2 years, the only person to cleanly beat Batista for the title is the Undertaker, and that's why Batista keeps getting title shots, because he's never beaten cleanly. That shouldn't really matter, because Taker has been screwed out of several of his title shots and even title reigns but doesn't ALWAYS get repeated title shots because of it. Anyway, that's why Batista was in the match.

Oh, so being away for a year and not liking someone is why we get title shots now?

It's only slightly worse than winning a battle royal because Big Show came in and eliminated everyone including yourself but your bodyguard caught you so it's ok. But hell, we all know why Rey was in that match so why even bother debating it? If Cena wasn't hurt, Rey wouldn't have come back at that point, or he'd have interfered to cost Kane the title probably.

So? Why did he even have his first match with Punk?

Kane wanted to prove he could actually beat Punk, having jobbed over and over since coming to Raw, and he still hasn't done it since his ECW stint, in fact, i'm not sure he even did it then.

No, I never said Punk had help, I said that JBL got distracted, and that cost him the match.

I guess that depends on your definition of clean, but i agree JBL not looking at what's going on in the ring isn't the same as being hit with a low blow or a run in.

And, Punk didn't lose to Batista, it was a double DQ.

It shouldn't have been but it was. Batista got attacked right in front of the ref. Bell rang, or if it didn't it should have done, Batista wins. Kane attacking Punk afterward was irrelevant to the outcome of the match

No, he's proving that despite what everyone says, he's still champion. And, the stuff that causes him to not win on his own is NOT HIS FAULT. It's not like he's having people help him win, it's situations that were completely out of his control.

Which keeps the storyline about him having to prove himself going. I don't understand how you can say something is bad booking, when you don't even understand the booking that is happening. How can you criticize something you apparently don't even understand?

Punk never got the chance to prove that he could actually beat any of his contenders except JBL. He never defended the belt against Kane or Cena, every match he had with Batista ended in DQ, he never gave Edge a return title match, and Mysterio was a non factor until Cena got hurt. Jericho is the only guy to beat Punk clean (you may say JBL, but i wouldn't count a handicap victory personally) and that was the only time Punk was made to look weak imo, and that didn't really bother me personally, because Punk beat Jericho in the KOTR so i'd consider them to be evenly matched. When itcomes down to beating JBL, anyone can beat him. I don't think he won any of his title defenses cleanly in 2004-05 or without capitolising on some kind of distraction like Heidneriech attacking Taker twice during a fatal 4 way at Armageddon i believe, and JBL quickly pinning a fallen Booker T. So Punk beating JBL isn't exactly a big notch on Punk's belt.

Oh and Sly, getting pinned in that handicap match was NOT the beneficial outcome for Punk. If he'd won he wouldn't have had to defend the belt (at least not against either of those two). All he did was avoid a triple threat.

Otherwise i still agree with you that the Punk title reign was a failure, not in terms of ratings or anything, but in getting us to believe that Punk can hang with the big boys and be a credible champ, but as usual i don't agree with it being entirely Punk's fault either.

 

[midusone]

I gotta be completely honest here guys. RAW's scramble was the worst of the bunch. I honestly agree that Jericho was the only guy that deserved to be in that thing. I'm having a hard time even fathoming why JBL's skill is being discussed. The man only works to make himself look good in the ring and does literally nothing to make the business better. I'd rather watch CHL cause at least that's MILDLY entertaining. JBL is not a good heel, a good heel does his best to get the face over, a la Chris Jericho. JBL is pretty much the Sid Vicious of this generation.

 

[RBH]

Usually I go out of my way to feud with Slyfox and try to disprove him but damn it this title reign was a failure and he is right. But it does not necissarily mean that a future title reign can be a failure. Look at randy Orton and Edge for proof of that. Let's go over what went wrong.
1. His push was rushed: This is a big possibility as no one really was ready for Punk to step up to that level. He only had feuds in ECW and never really a big fued with a top superstar. He needed at least a few more months before being given a title reign.
2. Bad Booking: Whether you agree or not, the bad booking was a major factor in why Punk's title reign was horrendus. He kept being involved in DQ matches and only beat JBL cleanly. He could not even beat Batista and that was a damn shame. He was always booked as weak and could not hold his own.
3. Bad People to Feud with: Too bad he did not get a great heel like orton to work with while he was champion. But JBL is just bad for a starter champion to feud with. JBL could not carry a feud with a new person but with older ppl, he works. see Cena-JBL feud for reference. Batista needs to either feud with only heels or turn heel. I hate face-face feuds as they do not really benefit anyone unless the feud is between two legendary superstars. Flair-Michaels is a good example of that.

Now I would not say to never ever give Punk another reign, just not now.

 

[Mattyboy]

JBL ran with the title for a year and held his own in big matches with Taker, Eddie etc, so i have to disagree with people crapping on him .He's outta shape now sure and he isnt going to be a champ again anytime soon, but the man did it for a year-he went from being APA to the companies top heel along HHH....

Anyway, the Punk. His reign was unexpected and fresh,him but he simply isnt ready for the main event-maineventing WWE is alot different from ROH. Thats why the Orton/Punk feud is starting up, to get Punk into a serious rivalry with WWEs top talent. Working with Orton should give Punk a boost, and he's too over with the crowd to be booted out and end up in TNA. Hopefully the Orton feud will improve Punk and keep him at the top, not because i like him that much, but having someone new at top keeps things fresh.

But i have to say, id sacrifice anyones title run to Y2J, heres hoping for a long run as champ

 

[Slyfox696]

But i have to agree with Klunker, Cena got booed because people were sick of him beating everybody that came his way, and next to none of them got more than one shot at him.

But, it's just not true. People started booing him back in 2005, long before you could give the "sick of winning" excuse. Then, in 2006, his record in PPV matches was worse than many WWE Superstars. It was only from Unforgiven 2006 to Unforgiven 2007 that Cena really had the run that people said they got sick of. But, he was being booed long before that.

Well, it didn't really, because he was the champ for the majority of the previous year as well. Beating Edge 3 times when people genuinely wanted to see Edge flourish as the WWE champ was what sparked it imo.

Go back and watch New Years Revolution 2006, and the Elimination Chamber. You'll see that is not an accurate statement.

In reference to a point made earlier, X-Pac heat is heat that a superstar gets regardless of what they do in storylines or in the ring. Once X-Pac turned on Kane in 1999, that was it for him, he remained heel most of the time, but even when he tried to turn face a couple of times, the fans were having none of it. The fans shut him down immediately. He could have put on a wrestling clinic like he once did with Bret Hart back in 94 or 95 i think it was, and he'd still have been booed out of the building.

I know what X-Pac heat is supposed to mean, but it's still a bullshit term. And when someone is getting booed it's always automatically termed X-Pac heat.

Vickie Guerrero has X-Pac heat. After getting fucked around by Edge and re-instating Taker, she was still booed to high heaven. She isn't booed because everyone hates the character or because she can stir up so many hateful emotions through her promos, she's booed because she's fucking terrible! When she was T'lo's assistant, no one cared about her in the slightest, and when she turned heel, that was it for the character right there.

Using this theory, then, Bobby Heenan had X-Pac heat. Edge has X-Pac heat.

JBL does not have X-Pac heat. The guy has never done anything close to a face action since becoming JBL. His return to the ring sparked from costing Y2J the title, and has picked on Finlay and Hornswoggle and then tried to reclaim the WWE title since, while warring with the 2 top superstars in the under 15 years fan category. He's simply a great heel, not a great wrestler, not by a long shot, but definitely a great heel, it's why if he ain't wrestling that night, you're guaranteed to hear him talk.

I agree, except with the "great wrestler" part. He's very underrated.

Batista gets repeated title shots because he is repeatedly screwed out of the title. In the last 2 years, the only person to cleanly beat Batista for the title is the Undertaker, and that's why Batista keeps getting title shots, because he's never beaten cleanly. That shouldn't really matter, because Taker has been screwed out of several of his title shots and even title reigns but doesn't ALWAYS get repeated title shots because of it. Anyway, that's why Batista was in the match.

It's only slightly worse than winning a battle royal because Big Show came in and eliminated everyone including yourself but your bodyguard caught you so it's ok. But hell, we all know why Rey was in that match so why even bother debating it? If Cena wasn't hurt, Rey wouldn't have come back at that point, or he'd have interfered to cost Kane the title probably.

Kane wanted to prove he could actually beat Punk, having jobbed over and over since coming to Raw, and he still hasn't done it since his ECW stint, in fact, i'm not sure he even did it then.

We were discussing why JBL deserved to be in, and I was pointing out that no one deserved to be in it more than JBL.

It shouldn't have been but it was. Batista got attacked right in front of the ref. Bell rang, or if it didn't it should have done, Batista wins. Kane attacking Punk afterward was irrelevant to the outcome of the match

Not really, because Kane attacking Punk shows that he wasn't allying with Punk. Which makes it the Double DQ.

Punk never got the chance to prove that he could actually beat any of his contenders except JBL.

But, he never got beat by any of them either...except for your current World Champion.

Jericho is the only guy to beat Punk clean (you may say JBL, but i wouldn't count a handicap victory personally) and that was the only time Punk was made to look weak imo, and that didn't really bother me personally, because Punk beat Jericho in the KOTR so i'd consider them to be evenly matched.

People get beat clean. I mean, when Cena got pinned by Batista, did that make Cena look weak?

So Punk beating JBL isn't exactly a big notch on Punk's belt.

But, it doesn't make him look weak, either does it?

Punk's push was winning the title, and then being showcased every week as trying to prove to all the critics he was worthy of being champion. There are more than one ways to make someone look good. Everyone seems to think the only way to make someone look good is to give them undefeated streaks, but there are more ways.

Oh and Sly, getting pinned in that handicap match was NOT the beneficial outcome for Punk. If he'd won he wouldn't have had to defend the belt (at least not against either of those two). All he did was avoid a triple threat.

It WAS beneficial though, because if the match had gone to a draw, then it would have been a Triple Threat match, which they say time and again nullifies any advantage the champion has.

So, losing clean WAS beneficial to Punk. Not to mention, that if Punk won, he still would have had to defend the belt, just not against JBL or Jericho. So, it WAS beneficial to Punk to get pinned. He avoided a Triple Threat, and he could choose who his opponent would be.

 

[CelticPride101]

did you guys really think he was going too be a great champion?? cmon now the mitb match wasent even supposed too be won by him until jeff got suspended but honestley half is punk's fault half is creative why would you set punk up against bigger guys. hence jbl batista?? they were just setting themselves up for failure but honestley i hope punk can rebound from this cause this is a huge dent on his career...be honest do you wanna see another cm punk title reign? psh not me.

 

[savage138]

I've never been much of a CM Punk fan, but I wouldn't call his title run a total failure.

It was a shot in the dark victory over Edge that noone saw coming. It was a few months of bad booking. It was boring, but not to the point of tears.

The things I've just said epitomize CM Punk's first WHC reign, and to be honest I didn't expect any more from him that what he delivered. The title was only put on him to bring it back to Raw, and he was not only the guy picked for the job, but he was allowed to carry the belt around for a few months afterwards as well. The title reign burned CM Punk's image into the minds of viewers, and now Punk can really get into the main event picture. It might not have been the most effetive way to try and get Punk over, but it worked.

Reigns like the one Punk just had taken from him aren't all that odd these days. Guys like Lesnar, Lashley, Batista, Orton, and now Punk have all been champions way too early on in their careers for traditionalist fans to truly accept, but most of those guys had or are still having successful careers with the exception of Lashley "whom I'm not entirely sure we've seen the last of".

So, I'll agree that CM Punk's reign wasn't very productive or fun to watch, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a failure...

 

[Mattyboy]

Beating JBL is in my view a big notch for Punk. Again, JBL was champ for a year and a top heel and the feud made sense to me, have a big heel ex champ going after Punk with the 'paper champion' angle. Its almost the same deal as Orton going after Punk. These are the kind of rivalries Punk needs to have-going up against the top heels in WWE. Prior to this Chavo was Punks only feud really.

I expect after the Orton feud or maybe one more feud afterwards, he'll be back in the title picture, for better or worse.

Lashely aint comin back man

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

But, it's just not true. People started booing him back in 2005, long before you could give the "sick of winning" excuse. Then, in 2006, his record in PPV matches was worse than many WWE Superstars. It was only from Unforgiven 2006 to Unforgiven 2007 that Cena really had the run that people said they got sick of. But, he was being booed long before that.

Ok, while at University i missed a LOT of 2005, and much of 2006 as well really, but when i did tune in, Cena always won, and people always booed so that's where i got that impression.

Go back and watch New Years Revolution 2006, and the Elimination Chamber. You'll see that is not an accurate statement.

I don't understand what that has to do with my suggestion that people wanted to see Edge get a lengthy run and Cena taking the title back in less than 2 months each time.

I know what X-Pac heat is supposed to mean, but it's still a bullshit term. And when someone is getting booed it's always automatically termed X-Pac heat.
Using this theory, then, Bobby Heenan had X-Pac heat. Edge has X-Pac heat.

Well no, Edge definitley doesn't. Like JBL he hasn't tried to do anything to turn face, so until he tries being face for a few months and continues to get booed heavily, i wouldn't say Edge has X-Pac heat. As for Bobby Heenan, isn't he another guy who was constantly heel? He was no longer in WWF when i started watching it, and i never watched WCW, all i have to base an opinion on is old footage, and he definitely was always a heel in all the instances i've seen.

I agree, except with the "great wrestler" part. He's very underrated.

His promos are golden, and he sells very well, and he does definitely have some great matches occassionally, but sometimes when he's against someone weak (which i know isn't a valid reason in your criteria because anyone should be able to get a great match out of anyone), he tends to just do forearm smashes and neckbreakers and the occassional shoulder block, and then a short arm clothesline followed by TCFH. I personally don't view his wrestling as great, but hey that's me.

We were discussing why JBL deserved to be in, and I was pointing out that no one deserved to be in it more than JBL.

I know, but you did ask Klunker why the other guys were in that title match as well, and in Kane's case why he ever had a match with Punk at all, and that's why i gave those examples, i personally would say JBL didn't deserve a title shot because Punk had already beaten him twice, cleanly. JBL himself has claimed that Batista shouldn't get another title shot because he'd had his and failed which came off as total hypocrisy (or not bothering to remember what had already been said on TV)

Not really, because Kane attacking Punk shows that he wasn't allying with Punk. Which makes it the Double DQ.

Should the ref care who or why outside interference occurred? Should it matter to the ref the motivations behind an unprovoked attack during a match? Not in my mind. If two guys had come in and attacked both men simultaneously, then yes i'd agree, but Batista getting hit by Kane during a Punk/Batsta match should signify the bell ringing immediately in Batista's favour. Punk getting attacked after that point should be irrelevant to the ref once the match is over, except for him not wanting to see Punk get his ass kicked as well.

People get beat clean. I mean, when Cena got pinned by Batista, did that make Cena look weak?
But, it doesn't make him look weak, either does it?

No, i don't believe in the whole 'he was made to look weak' thing really. Only jobbers can be booked to look weak. Anyone can win any match if it's booked that way. Colin Delaney could have beaten Taker/Kane/Show/Khali in a 4 on 1 handicap match with a finger poke of doom if creative had wanted it, so Punk getting owned by most of the heavyweights didn't really phase me tbh. It would have been nice to see him get a decisive win over more people than JBL and Snitsky though. He only beat Kane by count out if i recall. Getting beaten by Jericho didn't phase me, it was only 4 months ago that Punk beat Jericho in KOTR so i'd say they were even personally. Cena and Batista have had 1 match. If Batista continuously beat Cena that is the only way that i'd consider him to be booked weakly, but even if he can't beat Batista, he can still own the rest of the roster so no it wouldn't make him look weak. Hell, HHH has only ever beaten Taker once due to a Lesnar run in. Does that make HHH look weak? Not imo

Punk's push was winning the title, and then being showcased every week as trying to prove to all the critics he was worthy of being champion. There are more than one ways to make someone look good. Everyone seems to think the only way to make someone look good is to give them undefeated streaks, but there are more ways.

Totally agree. Undefeated streaks aren't going to do anything unless you can draw heat/get a pop for your mic skills, or you're actually an amazing wrestler like Lesnar, which is where Kozlov is failing because he's boring to watch and his promos just are single sentences most of the time. Umaga can sell a beat down, which is what helps him imo.
In regards to Punk, it would have been nice to see him beat someone decisively other than JBL and jobbers to the stars. He can't prove that he's credible if he retains due to interference every time like with Batista. If he'd actually pinned Batista once, or if he'd won the Scramble, i don't think you'd have ever started this thread, but that's all 'if's and but's' and we can only base it on what actually happened. Punk beat no one but JBL and Kane from the ME tier, which is why no one considered him a credible champ imo. You may disagree, but thats my view. Like i say i agree that the title run was a failure, because Punk has yet to prove he can hang with the big boys, but he didn't fail from a draw perspective imo.

It WAS beneficial though, because if the match had gone to a draw, then it would have been a Triple Threat match, which they say time and again nullifies any advantage the champion has.

So, losing clean WAS beneficial to Punk. Not to mention, that if Punk won, he still would have had to defend the belt, just not against JBL or Jericho. So, it WAS beneficial to Punk to get pinned. He avoided a Triple Threat, and he could choose who his opponent would be.

It was beneficial yes, but not as beneficial as winning, which was my point. I'd rather get to chose, take time to study my opponent, weigh out the plus and minuses of wrestling one over the other, and then make my announcement like the week before the PPV so that the contender had fuck all time to prepare. But that's reality, not wrestling. They'd never allow a champ to wait that long to pick an opponent because they wouldn't be able hype it in such a short time period, plus you'd want to give the impression that the contender had earned the spot rather than being given it because they're the weaker contender in the champ's opinion.

Otherwise, still agree, failed tile run, but not from a draw perspective.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't understand what that has to do with my suggestion that people wanted to see Edge get a lengthy run and Cena taking the title back in less than 2 months each time.

It shows that people didn't boo John Cena because Edge didn't win. Cena got MASSIVE boos on that show, whereas his feud partner Kurt Angle got MASSIVE cheers.

Should the ref care who or why outside interference occurred? Should it matter to the ref the motivations behind an unprovoked attack during a match? Not in my mind. If two guys had come in and attacked both men simultaneously, then yes i'd agree, but Batista getting hit by Kane during a Punk/Batsta match should signify the bell ringing immediately in Batista's favour. Punk getting attacked after that point should be irrelevant to the ref once the match is over, except for him not wanting to see Punk get his ass kicked as well.

I disagree. If Kane comes in to beat both of them down, then neither man is benefiting, and thus, it's a DQ. I mean, if Kane were to come in, slap Batista, and then spend 15 minutes Chokeslamming Punk, is it fair that Batista wins the match because he got slapped first?

Totally agree. Undefeated streaks aren't going to do anything unless you can draw heat/get a pop for your mic skills, or you're actually an amazing wrestler like Lesnar, which is where Kozlov is failing because he's boring to watch and his promos just are single sentences most of the time. Umaga can sell a beat down, which is what helps him imo.
In regards to Punk, it would have been nice to see him beat someone decisively other than JBL and jobbers to the stars. He can't prove that he's credible if he retains due to interference every time like with Batista. If he'd actually pinned Batista once, or if he'd won the Scramble, i don't think you'd have ever started this thread, but that's all 'if's and but's' and we can only base it on what actually happened. Punk beat no one but JBL and Kane from the ME tier, which is why no one considered him a credible champ imo. You may disagree, but thats my view. Like i say i agree that the title run was a failure, because Punk has yet to prove he can hang with the big boys, but he didn't fail from a draw perspective imo.

How about this "if"?

If Punk had actually ran with the ball the WWE gave him, then he would have started to decisively beat people. Since he didn't, the WWE saw no reason to really continue down that road with him as champion.

It was beneficial yes, but not as beneficial as winning, which was my point.

Winning wasn't any more beneficial though, because he still would have had a match. Maybe instead of Jericho or JBL, it would have been John Cena or the Undertaker. Would you call that beneficial?

The benefit was knowing who he'd face, and having the opportunity to choose.

Otherwise, still agree, failed tile run, but not from a draw perspective.

Obviously it was a failed title run from a draw perspective. If he was drawing, why would they take the title off of him?

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

It shows that people didn't boo John Cena because Edge didn't win. Cena got MASSIVE boos on that show, whereas his feud partner Kurt Angle got MASSIVE cheers.

Ok fair enough, i mean i'm basing my reasons for hating Cena during that period as an explanation for everyone else's reasons which i realsie is stupid, but from reading other posts on the subject, there are people out there who feel the same as me, so i assumed i wasn't alone in that perception.

I disagree. If Kane comes in to beat both of them down, then neither man is benefiting, and thus, it's a DQ. I mean, if Kane were to come in, slap Batista, and then spend 15 minutes Chokeslamming Punk, is it fair that Batista wins the match because he got slapped first?

Lol, no it certainly isn't fair. But fair isn't a factor really. It's not fair that people get dq'd just for picking up a chair before even getting a chance to use it as a weapon, which is what keeps happening now. What if he wanted to sit down?

If Punk had actually ran with the ball the WWE gave him, then he would have started to decisively beat people. Since he didn't, the WWE saw no reason to really continue down that road with him as champion.

I persoanlly thought that Punk was getting better in his promos his last couple of appearances. Still nothing amazing, but there was still improvement imo.

I know that in your view, if you get pushed, then you have to up your game even further, and i totally agree, but if you look at the top draws in the company, few of them have shown any improvement except Edge and Orton. HBK and Taker are still doing the same things they always have for the past 20 years, except Taker uses a new submission every now and then. Batista hasn't gotten any better on the mic, and guys like Rey, Booker and RVD never did anything new after becoming Champ.

My point is, it that obviously the talent don't see it as neccessary to improve much when they get the title. They must think 'well i've been given a belt because of what i've been doing, so i must be doing something right. Why change what works?' Since this year began, i've only seen three people run with the opportunities that WWE have given them. Those guys are Santino, for obvious reasons. Shelton who has improved his ring game since getting a title back, and TBK got the only World title shot that he's ever likely to get and wrestled his ass off this past Sunday.

I'm not saying that Wrestlezone is 100% on the money with all their reports, but no one has reported on this site that Punk has been getting negative feedback for his work in ages. There used to be reports on heat for his attitude backstage nearly every week, but not a bad word has been said about him since becoming champ. Apparently everyone was happy with him as the champ. Also the way they did it leaves it up in the air about whether he was a credible champion still, because he never got beat for the title. Granted a single punt taking a guy out, when the eventual winner of that title match had already wrestled in a 25 minute street fight where he was completely 'incapacitated', was really stupid. Orton and Priceless should have beaten on him for a good few minutes, busted him open and (kayfabe) broken something. But no, instead Orton can take out anyone with a punt. (Guy's with simple striking moves as finishers are becoming more and more frequent, and hey guess what? It doesn't get over, but that's for another discussion)
I guess they just want a Punk/Orton fued but it'll have to wait. They could've had Punk retain and Orton intefere in a totally different title match, costing Punk the belt, but i personally loved the swerve.

Winning wasn't any more beneficial though, because he still would have had a match. Maybe instead of Jericho or JBL, it would have been John Cena or the Undertaker. Would you call that beneficial?
The benefit was knowing who he'd face, and having the opportunity to choose.

If i remember, Adamle said if Punk won, neither of those guys would get a shot. So Punk wouldn't have had a chance to choose anything. 2 more guys would have pleaded their case, and they would have duked it out for a title shot, or there'd have been another handicap match for Punk to compete in (because handicap matches are Adamle's fave apparently). Either way it wouldn't have been Cena or Taker would it?

Obviously it was a failed title run from a draw perspective. If he was drawing, why would they take the title off of him?

I guess because they realise that HBK/Jericho is the hottest thing going right now, and want the World title to be part of the hottest angle going, which is stupid because they should just try to create another awesome fued like HBK/Jericho's instead of just transplanting the title onto theirs. Taking a short cut instaed of thinking about it, as is WWE's problem right now imo. Obviously they want a grudge fued between Punk and Orton, but they could totally do that with someone else without taking the belt off of Punk, but they haven't gone that way so....

Ratings were up for the first few weeks of Punks run and after that we've had a bunch of excuses about why the WWE is losing numbers from Wrestlezone and WWE just lie and say 'everyone's watching us'. The fact that they kicked off with a Batista fued and then went to JBL is probably why ratings dropped alongside the fact that most people have given up on the Kane/Rey fued before it's even started, the Glamerrela angle is slowing right down, and nothing else has really changed as far as i can see. Raw has lost the edge that the Draft and the GMless period gave us in the last few weeks, which is why i wouldn't associate the ratings going back down to be related simply to Punk being champ.

 

[jokerbateman86]

Cena didn't start getting booed during the 2006-2007 run he had. He started getting booed as soon as he switched to RAW and feuded with Chris Jericho. If I remember correctly, during their Summerslam match, more than half the crowd were cheering for Jericho that match. Just my two cents there in that whole discussion. Hope it helps.

As far as CM Punk goes.....it's hard to say. CM Punk is a very talented wrestler, but his promos and mic skills are just awful. Everyone says "but look at his promos on ROH, they were the best", well that may be true, but we are talking about WWE and his promos have been awful there. Add the fact that he never had a serious feud with anyone. Booking may have had him setup against the wrong type of competitors, but it is the wresters responsibilty to make it work. That's the way I feel....

 

[Mattyboy]

Ok, while at University i missed a LOT of 2005, and much of 2006 as well really, but when i did tune in, Cena always won, and people always booed so that's where i got that impression.

I can second that, i missed most of 05 and 06 because of Uni, but Cena seemed to get booed quite abit whenever i did catch it.

my thing with Cena isnt a personal dislike of his character or inring skill, i dont mind either. But when he was champ things got abit stale, he won it, and lost it. Then won it again. I was happy when Edge one it the first time because it was fresh, but he lost it after a few months. To Cena. It gets tiring, and you end up with wrestlers having mulitple world title reigns early in their careers and more overall than past legends.

It was the same poblem with HHH in the early 00s. Im a big HHH fan but i got so bored of him being champ all the time. He'd lose the belt for a month [HBK, Goldberg] and get it back.

There are only a few wrestlers whom id enjoy looooong reigns as champ-Taker, HBK, Jericho and Kane.

Thought id add, i always thought Punk should've have been built up to the mainevent after winning the IC or US title. Winning those belts always adds more credibility to a superstar, and the WHC or WWE title are always the next logical step after holding them.

 

[Undar8d]

You gotta remember though that CM Punk wasn't planned to be pushed. It WAS suppose to be Jeff Hardy, but he screwed it up by getting suspended. CM Punk just really bore me. The whole thing about Batista losing to him by DQ and such.. BORING... JBL. LOL BORING. He's very talented, but his mic skills and promos are just plain crap. I always switch the channel when CM Punk comes out because I know either Batista will come in or JBL will go on for the 50th time to talk about how he's the longest reigning champion on SmackDown. Thank god Chris Jericho's the new WHC Champion. He "saved" me in my opinion

 

[Adel_hamra]

i like punk but his victory of the WHC was horrible...that kind of win should be like, you cash it in, you pin the guy(who has been batista bombed in this case) and you win the title just so that you can sya you won a title and then you forfeit it...i was though impressed how he defended it against jbl at the bash but i don't see what's bad about what happened at unforgiven...and worse, they put jericho...they could have put the undertaker since he was stripped but that would not work out well since there was no promo of the undertaker wanting his title back

 

[Mattyboy]

Overall, if you look at where Punk is now having held the title compared to where he was, he isnt a failure. Yeah Hardy was supposed to to win the mitb and win the title, but he fucked up again. For the presitige of the mitb match, it had to be cashed in. And nobody woud've given a shit if he cashed it in for the ecw title. Punk was dealt rough hand-winning the belt from a laid out Edge is hardly good face actions-its cool for heels to do it [Edge did it twice], but not faces.

So Punk had a bad start straight away. Then JBL and Orton run him down in promos and basically tell the truth-he's a fluke champion. The commentators didnt help push Punk as a credible champ either. He got the hell beaten out of him by Regal aswell if i remember. Still he got clean wins over JBL, including ppv wins.

The biggest downside was not actually defending his belt in his scramble match. I cant see that ever happening to HHH, Cena etc. But it did.

So Y2J is champ now. Punks come off a 12 week WHC title, he's in the public mind and about to feud with Orton. He's a maineventer now, whereas before, he wasnt. So id say he was a success.

 

[Khalifa]

i believe that cm punk did fail, and did nothing but hurt the title, he had boring matches, his match with batista was the worst i have seen i world title bout in a few years ( not inlucding luke big daddy v and all them) the only way they made look cm punk look good was for him to pin jbl, and i am pretty sure ven paul london can do that now. he is not even a good wrestler . i dont even like him any more. he failed the title and i believe wwe see that so he wont get a title reign in a few years now.

 

[JED]

dear slyfox696, i think u posted this because u are not personally a cm punk fan. I get but dont let your ignorance get in the way of real facts. Cm punk did deservea title run. yeah it could have been more exciting but how can u say that a 222 pound man beating all of these heavyweights during his reign wasnt entertaining.

 

[Undar8d]

Cm punk did deservea title run

Ok.. what made him deserve a title run? The fact that he only won because Jeff Hardy screwed himself over when he was planned to win MITB? Although, CM Punk is a great wrestler and had a great run in ROH, his mic skills stink, promos he cut were boring etc. He should of just stayed IC and US titles and be brought up. And I may add, that slyfox didn't do this of ignorance, he just completely stated his opinion and are letting other people state theirs too.

but how can u say that a 222 pound man beating all of these heavyweights during his reign wasnt entertaining.

It wasn't entertaining because he didn't do great. He had the chance of becoming Main-Event and blew it. No wonder they took him out of the Scramble. because against guys like JBL, Batista etc, He'd be in there, not even looking like he fits.

 

[CCS]

I dont think CM Punk realy failed as champion. I just dont think he was given a fair chance to succeed. To my knowledge he held the title for three months and he only had 2 succesful title defenses by pinfall. Both was over JBL. Lets face it. getting a win over JBL isnt going to make you look like a legit champion. If WWE would have let him get a win over lets say Batista or Kane , He would have gotten more over as a world champion.

 

[image1986]

Cm punks title reign did what it was suppose to do build punk up and have it be a transitional run. Slyfox needs to realize is that his title reign was never suppose to be long in the first place. Think about it like this jeff hardy didn't have this incident how long of a reign do u think he would of have compared to punk? Probably a lil longer but not that much different. The fact is from start to finish cm punk reign has been unpredicable and that is what makes wrestling exciting. punk wqas throwed into the position last minute and I don't think creative had any long term goal with punk being champion because at that point the hbk jericho angle was the hottest thing on raw so instead of burying punk they had him not be pinned to lose the title which was a good move. A lot of times its better for a face to chase the title than to actually win it and in this case jericho was a better choice as champion 4 now and punk has an angle to chase the title that he didn't have before its a win win. look at hbks one month reign as world champ in 2002 or past reigns they were worse yet he is still over and people still get excited when he is in a title match even though we know he is not going to win. I think people are being over critical of punk cut the man a break

 

[Crush1]

Let's face it. The guy is a failure. The WWE gave him a World title in exciting fashion, and he dropped the ball. The WWE gave him a very interesting story

What interesting storyline are you talking about? when CM Punk became the WHC he was given a stupid storyline that he needed to prove himself ot other people and wrestled against wrestlers that absolutely were not compatible with punks ring work.

and he dropped the ball. His promos were lackluster, and his matches were cookie-cutter and boring.

In what catagory do you find something lackluster? Punk's promo wasnt exactly like a cena promo but it was good enough.The reason you may find that his matches were lackluster is because he was paired up with uncompatible wrestlers that could work with punks.So let me get this straight Punk had to work with a washed up heel and a guy who's gimmick is to dominate and you find that punk's fault? you check back old episodes.

Now, of course, all the Punk fans are going to jump in and blame the WWE for his booking and what all, but it's a load of crap and everyone knows it. A good worker can take bad booking and run with it.

Yeah right

See John Cena as proof of that, and the way he took poor booking and turned himself into a goldmine, not once but twice. So, don't give me this bad booking nonsense.

You cant compare cena with punk because 1, They have very different gimmicks and 2, Cena has a different in ring style than punk.

Let's face it IWC. Punk was a failure. He wasn't ready for the main-event in any capacity.

Just because he didnt succeed as a WHC doesnt mean that he cant prove himself in the future.

He wasn't a legitimate champion,

Of course not. He wasnt meant to be.

and wasn't an entertaining champion. He did nothing of value, and nothing of note.

Thats you're opinion and not of the other viewers.And yes he did something of value he made raw fresh and new.But you cant blame creative's developements just on ONE wrestler

His title reign was a failure. The question is, will he be able to bounce back from it, a la Randy Orton, or will he fall to the wayside like Rob Van Dam? I want to read your thoughts.

To answer you're question i believe he is going to bounce back because he doesnt have to deal with terrible workers.