Should we acknowledge that CM Punk's accomplishments and 'trailblazing' is being erased because.....

R=G

R=G

Street Terrorist
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
126,916
Reputation
9,044
Daps
150,431
Reppin
Westcoast
Silkk said:
Doesn't change the fact they all were stars that came from a global wrestling promotion. Benoit was the damn WCW champion when he came in.

Im not even sure what you're saying in the 2nd paragraph.
Click to expand...
Yeah..of a spot that were losing ratings and not counting. He got pushed in main events against the Rock in under 7 months..on PPV. Compare that to that silly way he won the belt in WCW that no one EVER, EVER brings up.
 
R=G

R=G

Street Terrorist
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
126,916
Reputation
9,044
Daps
150,431
Reppin
Westcoast
I'm rolling at "Bryan peaked and Punk was big but could of been bigger". Hey, genius, he would of NEVER been bigger than what he was in Chicago at MITB 2011. No fukking chance. And Bryan peaked? Bryan was injured and getting Austin/Rock 2000 reactions for talking segments with Stephanie...wtf:laugh: It's all twisted and fukked up:laugh:
 
O

Osmosis

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
21,528
Reputation
3,581
Daps
58,226
Golayitdown said:
What do you mean by this and what are you using to determine accessibility? At the surface it makes no sense.

How is Punk not as accessible when he legimately had mainstream attention back to the WWE for he first time in almost a decade? He could have been the catalyst to kick off a new era years before Bryan got to his peak. Bryan is popular as hell, but he would have been in an even better spot to be even bigger if he would have been in a position to continue from where Punk started.

It would be like if WWF dropped the ball and didn't capitalize on Austin blowing up in 96-98, then they pushed the Rock heavy from 99-2002. Would Rock be successful? Without a doubt, but would he be AS successful without a good running head start?
Click to expand...
I agree but I don't think WWE knew how to write a character like Punk. He had momentum but I just don't think they could have sustained his character as is without watering him down. Look at the Bryan character from the indies that everyone loved and then look at the shytty Bryan character that made it in the WWE. I feel like Punk would have to went through the same watering down if they committed to him
 
R=G

R=G

Street Terrorist
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
126,916
Reputation
9,044
Daps
150,431
Reppin
Westcoast
Dudes are walking around here actually giving credit to Austin and Punk for others..yikes. If they are that big, why aren't they the ones that matter TODAY though?
 
Golayitdown

Golayitdown

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
24,652
Reputation
5,103
Daps
83,721
JACK! said:
I agree but I don't think WWE knew how to write a character like Punk. He had momentum but I just don't think they could have sustained his character as is without watering him down. Look at the Bryan character from the indies that everyone loved and then look at the shytty Bryan character that made it in the WWE. I feel like Punk would have to went through the same watering down if they committed to him
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. I definitely agree with all of that.

My point was more so that they didn't even see where or how high Punk could go before he got cut off. We don't know what could have been because it's hard to point to a sustained point in his run where you got the impression that the E was like this guy is the guy we're hitching our wagon to that will carry us into the future post Cena. This doesn't really have much to do with just holding the belt. I know he had the title and was the longest reigning champ and all, but it didn't feel like he was ever backed as the guy.

Bryan got his moment (rightfully so) where it was clear they were dedicated to being behind him (despite the initial resistance and inconsistent booking). Unfortunately, he just wasn't able to stick around and truly see the fruits of his labor. It will always be a major what if, but you can kind of see that he was just getting started and was going to continue to be big. Punk's story, on the other hand, was fully written and he didn't even seem to get the chance to live up to the what could have been.
 
Last edited:
GPBear

GPBear

The Tape Crusader
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
20,111
Reputation
4,784
Daps
67,417
Reppin
Bay-to-PDX
R=G said:
Even at Punk's height, when was he better than Danielson in the ring? Dudes were clowning Punk all the time for Metro and Blandy...now that a much more beloved guy retired because actually bled for the business, Punk is Macho Man from WM 3 level? Preposterous.
Click to expand...
I think he did it first, not necessarily better. And Punk being first/the trailblazer may have more to do with them holding off Bryan's push

We can all agree that Roman Reigns is terrible though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top