Who's walkout was the worst: CM Punk or Stone Cold?

[stonecoldhell]

Who did the worst walk out in your view? CM Punk or Stone Cold?

CM Punk on the other hand was extremly jealous and was like a baby "Buhu I want a mainvent in wrestlemania or I'm leaving" He wasn't mainevent material for the biggest show, and walked out. It was extremly unproffessional thing to do in so short time to Wrestlemania. He thought Triple H wasn't a big enough match for him. He's ego walked out on the company while some PG kid chanted his name, the majority are know sick of CM Punk.

Stone Cold walked out in 2002 and didn't want to job to Lesnar, he even walked out twice, and also beat his wife bloody after it.
Vince Mcmahon even said this about Stone Colds politics: "Austin was the the toughest man to work with". Austin didn't wanted to lose any matches and his politics are known by todays mainstream fans. The fans bitch about Triple H, Shawn Michaels but Austin was right up there at that time, and Austin even admitted that, he was too stubborn at that time.

But who's walk out was the worst between them?

CM Punk or Stone Cold? Or were both were equally dipshits?

 

[hacksawrowdyhogan]

Punk by far. He was still hot, maybe not white hot anymore.

Scsa was clearly on the downward trend of his career.

 

[TheICChampion]

Well, whether or not it was disrespectful, let's see how well we work when we have nagging injuries that keep getting aggravated due to not being able/allowed to take enough time off to ensure they heal properly. Don't forget, Austin's neck was broken by Owen Hart at SSlam '97 and he was back on TV pretty quickly (not wrestling, but still). I don't know the extent of Punk's injuries, but after a while it's bound to catch up if you're working all the time, traveling all over the world. Could things have gone differently? Absolutely. No dispute here. Who's walkout was the worst? I'd have to say Punk, but at the same time I can kind of see why he did. Same with Stone Cold.

 

[WBL]

Whose. Not who's. Whose.

And I'd say Austin, sheerly for the fact of how it happened. According to reports, Austin was trying to do it in a way that nobody would know he wasn't there, hopping a plane, someone seeing him at the airport and reporting it, etc.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, it's difficult to really judge either Austin or Punk because, no matter what we've heard via rumors or read on the internet over the years, we probably don't know the entire story and likely never will.

Based simply on what I've read over the years, neither of them comes off all that sympathetic to me. In terms of Austin not wanting to job to Lesnar, given what we know about Lesnar in terms of him being simply all about the money, it's easy to understand if that was something that rubbed Austin the wrong way. Austin devoted his life to pro wrestling and loved it while Lesnar obviously doesn't. Lesnar's all about getting as much money as he can for the least amount of work. Not hating on the guy for that, it's the sort of situation that I think most people would love to find themselves in.

At the same time, it was unprofessional of Austin doing things the way he did, at least in my opinion based on what I THINK I know. By this time, Austin was very much set for life, he didn't exactly "need" to wrestle, his ego had probably grown several sizes over the years and, as a result, the company didn't really have any leverage. You see similar behavior from some athletes in various sports who conduct themselves unprofessionally. They make so much money and draw so much money that some of them essentially do or say whatever they want with little or no consequences. Even though there wasn't any single "face" of WWE during the Attitude Era, Austin is someone who could make a genuine claim to being closer to it than just about anyone. He didn't want to job, he didn't like losing, he saw that he was the top money maker and wielded it like a sword to get his way whenever he could.

As far as CM Punk goes, if the guy was unhappy with the way things were going, then he ultimately had to do what he thought was best for his own future. My biggest issue with Punk was how he went about it as, regardless of what is or isn't true, he came off like a dick walking out half an hour before Raw aired the night after the Royal Rumble. Some people had paid a lot of money specifically to see Punk, so I thought it was a sign of disrespect on his part. I'm still a fan of Punk as a wrestler but the more I hear about him as a person, the less I like him, IF what I hear is true. Based on all that info, Punk comes off like a guy who enjoys baiting people, confrontation and has something of a double standard in that he wants respect from everyone, yet sometimes doesn't feel he should treat others with that same respect he wants and expects. Various reports over the years suggest that he constantly has something to complain or is unhappy about no matter what. If that's true, then it's little wonder WWE didn't give him the "John Cena push" he allegedly wanted. Punk's never really shown any loyalty to WWE, he's never demonstrated Cena's devotion or work ethic. So couple that with the allegations of him always griping about something, it's little wonder he didn't get pushed as hard as Cena.

I understand and agree that a wrestler having an ego to one degree or another is a good thing. After all, if you're someone that thinks you have the stuff, then sometimes you have to yell loud enough for management to hear and then do your best to back it up. The other guys further up the card aren't gonna pay your bills for you, nor are they gonna sacrifice having a potential HOF career for someone who doesn't have the stones to stand up and say "I deserve a shot and I'm willing to back it up." In the case of Austin, it sounds like his ego simply got to be too much, he got to thinking of himself as irreplaceable and forgot that no single star is bigger than the company. In the case of Punk, it sounds as though he was someone who also let his ego get out of control and had a bad attitude while expecting to get his way. He didn't get it, got the notion that he wasn't going to get it and finally gave up.

Again, based just on what we THINK we know, both sound like dicks. Neither of them comes off as especially sympathetic because it's not as if they were "screwed" over by the company, their multi-million dollar bank accounts back that up.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Austin, the single biggest star in pro wrestling history, was told to job to a newbie in Lesnar, on a Raw broadcast with no build-up.

Punk, a great but not legendary performer, was working toward a match with Triple H at WrestleMania, and threw a fit because he wasn't headlining.

Punk's was the worst.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

This depends how you look at it. Though, your original post is obviously bias against CM Punk. Austin in 2002 was already done. His run was over. He wasn't close to as over as he used to be, and Vince spent a lot of 2002 booking him on the back burner. CM Punk probably should have main evented WM30. Or at least WM29, because he was their most over face or heel during that time. Punk was a more over heel than HHH or Lesnar in 2013. And he was as over as Bryan in 2014 as a face, and certainly more over than both Orton or Batista combined.

WM29 should have been Punk vs Taker, Title vs Streak. That's a way bigger main event than Cena/Rock II. Likewise, WM30 should have been Punk vs Bryan in a unification match for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, because both Batista and Orton were second string compared to both these guys.

Punk's departure hurt WWE more, because WWE should have done more with him and still can do more with him. Austin was already done in 2002. Even Rock was done in 2002.... People were ready for Lesnar or anyone new as the next face of WWE during that time.

 

[Roman Empire]

It depends on what you mean by worst. I'll define it for the purposes of my post as which walkout was worse for the business? The answer for that is certainly Stone Cold. His presence was sorely missed and cost him and WWE a lot of money.

CM Punk's absence hasn't affected anything. The machine rolled on. I think the fans that chant for him in other people's matches are incredibly rude. I get they miss Punk, but hijacking other perfectly good matches to have their little temper tantrum is really stupid. I guarantee Punk doesn't care that much about them.

I don't blame him either. I would be a bit fed up dealing with the "fans" who treat you like garbage by demanding autographs at 2 in the morning while you're trying to make a flight. The "fans" who dig threw his garbage at his Chicago home and assault his privacy on a regular basis. That's disturbing behavior.

To close it up, yeah Stone Cold's walk-out definitely was worse. Austin is a man of integrity though, and he certainly has shown a lot of regret about that decision. Cooler heads didn't prevail, but that's a part of life sometimes. Punk was not as nearly important to the wrestling business as he felt he was IMHO.

 

[tak161]

It's really hard to determine which was worse, as both were major blows to the company at the time. Austin was the biggest name there, regardless of his current place on the card, he was the number one guy. So him walking out was devastating to WWE. From reports, it was because he didn't want to face Brock without proper buildup, and I can understand that. Austin vs Brock would have made tons of money, but they wanted to give it away for free in a random match. That's not how Austin does business, it has to mean something.

Punk walked out because he was being disrespected, in his mind by WWE. And in a lot of ways, he was. Despite everything, Punk deserved his time in the spotlight of Mania, maybe not at the last one, but definitely in 2012. He wanted change in how things were done, and his attempts at that were falling on deaf ears as WWE wanted to push Cena vs Rock. The frustration from that and injuries that kept building up ultimately caused him to just walk away. Not the best way to do it, but I can't blame him for how he felt.

Which one was worse? I still don't know, a case can be made for both, but I think the edge goes to Austin, simply because he was Stone Cold Steve Austin. Who thought that he would ever walk out like that? But really, they each had their reasons, and despite how anyone feels about it, they did what they felt was right for them at the time.

 

[Roman Empire]

Punk was a top babyface in the company arguably on the same level as John Cena and Bryan. He was far from disrespected. Punk is simply a man-child at times when it comes to what he thinks he deserves.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

Your grammar is appalling...

...regardless, if social media/dirt sheets/IWC has bee as active in 2002 then SCSA would have been a FAR bigger deal, as the guy was a far bigger deal.

Punk deciding to walk out on the company who made him, will forever be remembered (or forgotten) as a flash in the pan. Nothing more.

 

[Heartbreak_Kid_707]

Now punk who was at the top of his game can now sit on the couch wiping his tears without a job. Or join the lovely wwe rejects in tna, or join ADR out of country, or back to the indie league..

He can't use nagging injuries as an excuse. He walked out because he said he was at the top of his game and wanted to main event Wrestlemania..the biggest match, on the biggest ppv in the biggest company. You can't want that and still cry with nagging injuries....

Always was a straight edge crybaby..

 

[d_henderson1810]

Well, whether or not it was disrespectful, let's see how well we work when we have nagging injuries that keep getting aggravated due to not being able/allowed to take enough time off to ensure they heal properly. Don't forget, Austin's neck was broken by Owen Hart at SSlam '97 and he was back on TV pretty quickly (not wrestling, but still). I don't know the extent of Punk's injuries, but after a while it's bound to catch up if you're working all the time, traveling all over the world. Could things have gone differently? Absolutely. No dispute here. Who's walkout was the worst? I'd have to say Punk, but at the same time I can kind of see why he did. Same with Stone Cold.

Austin had from Nov 1999-to Sep 2000 off WWE.

Punk took time off between WM29 and Summerslam.

If they wanted time off, they could have asked for it. Maybe have it be a storyline injury, and then bring them back, wanting revenge. It gives the wrestler time off and it creates hype and ratings on their return.

Look, do you think that if Austin or Punk asked for time off and was refused, they would be sacked. No! So, I don't buy that.

WWE has its own medical staff, and the wrestlers are assets to WWE. If SCSA had neck problems, do you think Vince would risk his biggest star, say it was the height of the Attitude Era, and possibly have him get injured worse.

Daniel Bryan is getting time off because of injury. WWE aren't forcing Bryan to wrestle anyway. So, this excuse doesn't justify their actions.

 

[d_henderson1810]

This depends how you look at it. Though, your original post is obviously bias against CM Punk. Austin in 2002 was already done. His run was over. He wasn't close to as over as he used to be, and Vince spent a lot of 2002 booking him on the back burner. CM Punk probably should have main evented WM30. Or at least WM29, because he was their most over face or heel during that time. Punk was a more over heel than HHH or Lesnar in 2013. And he was as over as Bryan in 2014 as a face, and certainly more over than both Orton or Batista combined.

WM29 should have been Punk vs Taker, Title vs Streak. That's a way bigger main event than Cena/Rock II. Likewise, WM30 should have been Punk vs Bryan in a unification match for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, because both Batista and Orton were second string compared to both these guys.

Punk's departure hurt WWE more, because WWE should have done more with him and still can do more with him. Austin was already done in 2002. Even Rock was done in 2002.... People were ready for Lesnar or anyone new as the next face of WWE during that time.

I actually thought that Punk should have main-evented, at WM29, in a different match than what you said.

I would have made it Rock v Cena v Punk at WM29. Rock beats Punk at EC, instead of RR, and you have champion Rock, Punk (who infracted his rematch clause) and RR winner Cena. All three have shown contempt for one another (in Rock and Punk's cases, real-life contempt, whereas I believe that Cena respects Punk in real life, but has contempt in the storylines), and it wouldn't have made WWE liars ("Once In A Lifetime" would have actually been "Once In A Lifetime").

Punk would then have had his main-event at WM, and Rock v Cena at WM28 would be more special today, because it was a one-time-only, (like Hogan-Warrior was meant to be).

 

[Roman Empire]

Your grammar is appalling...

...regardless, if social media/dirt sheets/IWC has bee as active in 2002 then SCSA would have been a FAR bigger deal, as the guy was a far bigger deal.

Punk deciding to walk out on the company who made him, will forever be remembered (or forgotten) as a flash in the pan. Nothing more.

I'm not here to write an English term paper. I couldn't give two shits about my grammar. Furthermore I'm typing on an iPhone so this is about as good as it gets. Thank you for being incredibly rude and throwing that in my face instead of simply discussing wrestling. Typical IWC garbage right there.

All you did after that was agree with me anyway, so... 'K.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

I'm not here to write an English term paper. I couldn't give two shits about my grammar. Furthermore I'm typing on an iPhone so this is about as good as it gets. Thank you for being incredibly rude and throwing that in my face instead of simply discussing wrestling. Typical IWC garbage right there.

All you did after that was agree with me anyway, so... 'K.

He was talking about the OP's poll title dude, not you ... the "who's" is incorrect (but this is extremely trivial and didn't really need to be mentioned). No need to get yourself all defensive man.

Anyway, on topic. I understand that a lot of people feel that Punk's walkout left more of a mark than Austin. This can be said to be true. Austin was on his way out before much longer anyway. Punk was on the up, even if he was in a bit of a transitional place. He must have seen it as him moving down the card, but whatever.

As far as I'm concerned they both did the same thing, even if it had different effects, so do not consider one instance to be less bad than another.

 

[Roman Empire]

Ah there was no way for me to determine that, he replied directly under me. Thanks for the heads up Ollie. Is that Ollie as in Green Arrow, or just Ollie? Maybe Oliver North?

 

[ComeOnVince]

Both are bad, but time will tell which is "worse," I think.

Stone Cold in recent years has been very vocal about his walkout, regardless of the circumstances and his condition, being his biggest regret. In hindsight, he realizes the reality of that situation. Since that walkout, he returned to finish his in-ring career with a loss to the Rock, some time as "sheriff," a few guest ref spots, hosting tough enough, and being a major face at such WWE announcements as the Network deal and whatnot. Stone Cold's walkout, while in my mind was justified (by his reasoning), was still the wrong thing to do. He realized it, and I think has done what he could to put it behind him and own up to it.

We still don't know why Punk left for sure. We know what we think, but we don't know.

I think time will only tell which of these is "worse." Does Punk return someday? Do Punk and WWE reconcile? Seems unlikely. But we don't know.

Any walkout (to the fans) is bad. But we aren't in their shoes. We don't travel 300 days a year and get bumped around, bruised, and broken. Part of their deal? Yes, it is. But they have a right to determine if they think they are being utilized properly or given their fair shake. You and I also have a right to our opinions and judgments, even if not based on facts.

For ME personally, the SCSA walkout was worse FOR ME at the time because I was (and am) a huge Stone Cold mark. But that's just me.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I think Stone Cold's was the worst because he was clearly not doing too well in his private life. I think CM Punks walk out done as a principle. Stone cold went through a hell of a time after that too. CM Punk seems relaxed and happy and healthy.

That is why I say Stone Colds was bad. From a McMahon point of view - he won't have been happy with Punk walking out 12 weeks before the WWE Network launched. But then CM Punk was itching to leave in 2011 apparently. It was not like it was unforeseen and down to bad man management by WWE.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Punk's probably hurt more, but arguably the WWE had less on tap for Punk than they did for Austin, even though Austin probably had less in the tank to offer to the WWE than Punk did. I think the WWE would've liked to have Punk around for matches against Bryan and Wyatt, but in all honesty, Punk's ship had pretty much sailed. In the end, neither one ultimately did much damage to the WWE.

 

[MWRedskins]

both were bad, but i want to eliminate one of Stone Cold's walkouts right now. the 2nd one had him "reportedly" jobbing to Coach and if that report is true, i cant blame him for that one. that's the one guy Stone Cold should NEVER job to. now Brock is a different story and he should've taken that. As for CM Punk, i felt him leaving was a bit dumb. sure he wasnt in the title match, but i dont think he should've got a shot either. in my book that should've been Bryan's moment, but i did like a potential Punk and HHH feud. now if Punk left due to jobbing to HHH, him leaving is understandable, but still disagree with it. he should've just tried to change their minds saying how that's dumb and how they need to push the younger guys, but in the end, i still say both were bad. Punk's was worse though with the timing of it.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

I would actually say Stone Cold's walk out by a long shot.

Punk's work was progressively getting worse & more sloppy. He obviously didn't care much about his job anymore & was very vocal for years about being unhappy. Punk had been a whiny baby/rebellious activist (however you wanna look at it) & his contract was up sometime in 2014 anyways, his days were obviously numbered. Also from a fan's perspective, what big match ups did we really miss out on with Punk leaving? Punk vs. HHH again? HHH vs. Bryan at WM XXX was one of the best matches possibly EVER in Mania history, so I'd say good riddance.

But EVERYONE would still want to see Lesnar vs. Austin! That is a bonafide dream match that is basically guaranteed to never happen now. Also what other match ups did we miss out on with Austin? That was more or less his last real year in the company as an in-ring talent & ended up missing tons of PPV's including Summerslam 2002 & Survivor Series 2002, two pretty epic events already so just think of how much better they could have been with some Stone Cold added to the mix!

So while the Punk walk out is the more recent & "devastating", in nerdy wrestling fan dream land, I would have much rather had 8 more months of Stone Cold being around in 2002 than Punk staying around till June/July of this year.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

To be honest neither in my opinion did anything to really "hurt" professional wrestling/WWE. Let's be realistic here on some factors:

Let's go back in time to Steve Austin, considering his walk out preceded CM Punk's by well over a decade. There is no denying that Steve Austin IS a legend in this business, an icon. Those two terms are obviously overused and sometimes inaccurately applied, however in Steve Austin's case no one can contest his status. Hell, I was a fan of his as "Stunning" Steve Austin and while it took a little bit of time for WWF to see that "The Ringmaster" was a complete misstep, I'm glad they came around and he reinvented himself, an obviously important move in order for Austin to have become the legend he did in professional wrestling. However by 2002 and let's be honest with ourselves here, Steve Austin's "walkout" from the WWF/E wasn't this devastating blow that some people could make it out to be. Had something like this happened during the Attitude Era, then maybe you'd have something. But Steve Austin's career was hindered by his injury in late 1999. Don't get me wrong, he did very well for himself after his return, having a classic WrestleMania main event redux with The Rock at WM X7, his time with the Alliance (although that was such a shitty angle), and his feud with Kurt Angle. However, fast forward to 2002 where he has his mini-feud with Scott Hall, and by this time, he's only less than a year away from completely hanging up the boots. WWE, much like when Hogan left the then-WWF in 1993, learned to work around not having their top guy anymore, as other stars would step up to fill the void the standard bearers leave when either moving on to another organization or dealing with a serious injury.

Now that's not me saying Austin wasn't missed during his 1999-2000 absence, but the WWF was still doing very well against WCW in continuing their reclamation of Monday Night dominance. By the time the summer of 2002 rolled around and Austin had excused himself from the promotion, the world wasn't going to end. I mean don't get me wrong, it sucked he wasn't around but things moved on. It was good to see him come back in 2003 and give himself a proper platform to have that showdown with The Rock at Mania XIX, but WWE was in no danger with any momentum loss with Austin missing.

Moving on to CM Punk, awesome competitor, I truly admire what he does in the ring, and I will say he has entertained me. However, let's keep into perspective what his place truly was in WWE. He was always going to battle someone like Cena for that top spot. I am not saying that I like Cena more than Punk because I don't. Not by one iota. I've never been a Cena aficionado. The guy's a hell of a lot better in the way of performance than any asshole smark would want to give him credit for being, but I am not part of his demographic and I just don't root for him. No animus though but just not a fan. I think Punk is the more exciting of the two to watch. But even those guys still don't hold a candle to my favorite WWE performer of the last decade, and that's The Undertaker. Obviously, he's by no means able to perform the way the aforementioned have, but all in the WWF/E of the mid-90s to late-2000s, I've always rooted for The Taker. Every single time, I digress. As awesome as Punk is and despite every great performance and his 434 day title reign as WWE Champion, he was not the guy. It was still Cena. I mean most of Punk's title defenses were the penultimate match of the event and very rarely the closing contest. Again, not saying I agree with Cena being the top guy or that I like him, but that says a lot right there.

So when Punk left earlier this year, while it definitely was unfortunate any chance of him having another run as the World Champion were dashed, it hasn't changed the swing of things in WWE, the promotion has persevered and it will continue to. Anything that hinders WWE is not indicative of who comes and goes. I believe since the Hogan/Federation era ended, they've found themselves a way to deal with every departure that occurs with the possible exception of Brock Lensar, his 2004 departure really changed the possibilities of what was to come. I think you only need to cite the rise of Bradshaw's transformation into JBL as proof of that.

As always, with threads like these, I choose to not want to speculate into the motivations of why both men "walked out" of WWE. I wasn't there, I'm just a fan who likes to watch wrestling. The business side for me is just a little too complicated and overthinking what goes go on behind the scenes undermines what being a fan should be about. I will say this one bit though, when you work in a world that doesn't believe in unionizing but yet its performers are called "independent contractors" when they are really anything but, it's safe to say that the reasons for those choosing to "walk out" or do anything that seems extreme might very well be understandable.

Oh and OP, say all you want about how you're not here to write a term paper, no one's expecting you to be a master wordsmith or linguist, but knowing the mere difference between "who's and whose" I would say is a rather important detail, an iPhone is easy enough to do that with.

 

[The Boss]

They both proved that Olive Oyl has more balls than both of them combined. All the years where she cried, "HELP! POPEYE HELP!" made her more of a man than either of them. Although I wasn't a major fan of either one of them to begin with (nothing against their ring work, just that they are both over rated when it comes to star power) and therefore didn't care one way or another that they were gone other than HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN wanted to work with both of them which I would have liked to have seen but, they both - as Vince said - "took their ball and went home". Pathetic.

 

[The Boss]

both were bad, but i want to eliminate one of Stone Cold's walkouts right now. the 2nd one had him "reportedly" jobbing to Coach and if that report is true, i cant blame him for that one. that's the one guy Stone Cold should NEVER job to.

First of all you NEVER walk out on a show. That is the ultimate no no in ANY form of entertainment. Second, how dare you insult "The Golden Greek" John Tolos. The guy was a legend in our sport and Austin should have been honored to do the job.

Sorry if that second part sounded harsh but I was really taken aback that you would insult a wrestler the caliber of Tolos in an attempt to excuse what Austin did.