CM Punk: Greatest Promo Ever

[Kostka]

I wonder if Waltman will get another run out of this? I don't think H will step in the ring yet, and obviously he'd be a lot more valuable in-ring guy than Nash for this. Waltman vs Punk would fucking rule... Waltman vs Cena would be awesome. Waltman vs Mysterio... Him tagging up with Nash and/or Del Rio against Cena and Punk and Mysterio or whatever. Bring on Waltman!

[rovert]

I wonder if Waltman will get another run out of this? I don't think H will step in the ring yet, and obviously he'd be a lot more valuable in-ring guy than Nash for this. Waltman vs Punk would fucking rule... Waltman vs Cena would be awesome. Waltman vs Mysterio... Him tagging up with Nash and/or Del Rio against Cena and Punk and Mysterio or whatever. Bring on Waltman!

Waltman has hepatitis C

[Loss]

I don't think Punk was buried at all. However, I do think the writing is terrible and this is no longer special.

I don't see how it was poor writing. The finish set up a new heel champion with multiple quality challengers.

 

Del Rio is not over enough to be the champion. That's my point. And I have always hated the idea of putting a title on someone to get them over because it never works the way they think it will, yet they never learn.

 

Not sure how they really set him up for success any more than they did Miz either, and Dave going on for months about Miz being someone who can't draw TV ratings ... it just looks like they're setting Del Rio to go down the same path.

 

I do not understand the "They didn't book this exactly how I wanted, so the story is already deader than dead" attitude. I know some of you just hate current WWE and are going to shit on anything and everything they do, but we're going on two months of quality television at this point. At what point do you stop sitting around waiting to be the first to proclaim that they've fucked things up and start enjoying it?

It didn't have to be exactly how I wanted, but this mindset of blaming fans for not enjoying bad TV instead of blaming the people who produce it for its flaws has to stop.

 

I know people here like Punk, but liking Punk is preventing people from being objective.

[Log]

While I don't think this angle has been as good as it could have been, I still don't see how it's outright bad.

 

Let me put it this way...Previous to Punk's "Greatest Promo Ever", I would watch Raw on dvr every week. Really more out of habit than anything else. Just checking to see if they'd actually done anything interesting. Now, I actively look forward to Raw. After last nights events, I'm really curious as to where this is all going.

 

I said it myself earlier in this thread. I have every expectation that they will fuck this up. I just don't think they've done it yet. Yes, it's not up to it's full potential. But it's too soon to write it off completely.

[Loss]

I understand that point of view, and as I have said a few times in this thread, this is the best thing they've done in a long time. But it's still really bad. I do think announcing a tournament the night after the PPV was a big misstep, and to me, HHH replacing Vince was the moment when they did fuck it up. Not really much they can do to come back from that.

 

If there's are positives, it's that Punk's stock has risen in the past couple of months and they had a great match last month on PPV. There is not a single other thing that I can point to as a positive.

[sek69]

To be fair, I don't think Nash is going to be coming back to be a full time wrestler. He's a smart guy and seems well aware his in ring career is pretty much over. He didn't even seem to want to do much in TNA wrestling wise. WWE is usually much better at handling older guys too, and having Nash as typical WWE manager who's physically weak would be silly considering his size, so having him being a bodyguard of sorts seems to work well for him.

[jdw]

I'm not sure if people are getting this:

 

Nash just wrestling >>>>> Nash on Creative

 

And that's while admitting that Nash just wrestling would be horrible. The thing is, Nash would bomb out just wrestling, as he did the last time around in the WWE. Sitting around on Creative for the next five years while Creative transitions from Vince Yes Men to Trip Yes Men... what was it that Vince said about the nWo?

 

"I'm going to INJECT the WWF with a lethal dose of POISON."

 

 

John

[Sean Liska]

I don't think Nash would put up with all issues that come up with being on WWE creative. They're constantly on the road, on call for Vince, re-writing stuff at the last second, etc. And despite the storyline, it sounds like we're a long ways away from HHH taking over for Vince and doing things his way. According to Meltzer, there's still plenty of stuff that he can't get done in the company. Shoot, Nash got that massive pop at the Rumble and then sat home for eight months, so it's not like Vince is overly enamored with the guy's abilities.

[Coffey]

Alberto Del Rio is really an interesting WWE case. They had enough faith in him to let him win the Royal Rumble. But it seems like something in-between The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania gave them cold feet, or something, because he lost in the curtain jerk at 'Mania. Del Rio then kept cutting the same "it's my destiny!" promo but people stopped listening because he just lost every big match. Then he won Money in the Bank, cashed in his briefcase and won the title. So he goes from new heel dominating people on Smackdown, to winning the Royal Rumble, to de-pushed superstar, to cheap World Champion cause they're going to tour Mexico?

 

It just seems really short-sighted to me. Punk caught fire and could have been massively over and instead they're worried about short-term with Mexico? If Del Rio was going to cash-in anyway, why let Cena put his foot on the rope? Why do they keep throwing so much shit into the same bowl? We go from John Cena Vs. C.M. Punk to John Cena Vs. C.M. Punk featuring Johnny Ace, Triple H, Vince McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, Alberto Del Rio & Kevin Nash.

[jdw]

I don't think Nash would put up with all issues that come up with being on WWE creative. They're constantly on the road, on call for Vince, re-writing stuff at the last second, etc. And despite the storyline, it sounds like we're a long ways away from HHH taking over for Vince and doing things his way. According to Meltzer, there's still plenty of stuff that he can't get done in the company. Shoot, Nash got that massive pop at the Rumble and then sat home for eight months, so it's not like Vince is overly enamored with the guy's abilities.

My recollection back in the day is that some members of Creative contribute via Conference Call, which is a hell of a lot easier to do now with various forms of video conferencing. You're also mixing up Writers and Other Members Of Creative. I doubt Nash would ever want to literally *write*. He's a Big Picture Guy.

 

I doubt Big Kev would turn down a long term gig in a creative role with the company. Nash being Nash, he's naturally set it up to do as little work as possible. While of course keeping himself close to Trip and letting trip hear what he wants to hear.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think Punk was buried at all. However, I do think the writing is terrible and this is no longer special.

I don't see how it was poor writing. The finish set up a new heel champion with multiple quality challengers.

 

Del Rio is not over enough to be the champion. That's my point. And I have always hated the idea of putting a title on someone to get them over because it never works the way they think it will, yet they never learn.

 

Not sure how they really set him up for success any more than they did Miz either, and Dave going on for months about Miz being someone who can't draw TV ratings ... it just looks like they're setting Del Rio to go down the same path.

 

I do not understand the "They didn't book this exactly how I wanted, so the story is already deader than dead" attitude. I know some of you just hate current WWE and are going to shit on anything and everything they do, but we're going on two months of quality television at this point. At what point do you stop sitting around waiting to be the first to proclaim that they've fucked things up and start enjoying it?

It didn't have to be exactly how I wanted, but this mindset of blaming fans for not enjoying bad TV instead of blaming the people who produce it for its flaws has to stop.

 

I know people here like Punk, but liking Punk is preventing people from being objective.

 

 

I've REALLY been trying to avoid getting to deep into this thread because I think the real issue here is a divide between guys who still regularly watch the current product and have been accustomed to putting up with a certain level of WWE bullshit v. guys who gave up years ago and are going to immediately hone in on obvious deficiencies as a sign of total failure of an angle. Having said that I think this post really deserves a response from someone who clearly falls into category A.

 

For starters Del Rio is over. Period. Is he Austin or The Rock when they won their first title? No. Is he JBL or Jack Swagger when they won their first title? No. He's probably closer to the Miz, accept for the fact that he's better in the ring and his mannerisms seem to generate more heat than any body language tricks Miz tosses around. If you are a hardcore WWE fan - and I fit the definition better than anyone on this forum I would guess - it is pretty much indisputable that Del Rio is over as a heel and has been since the moment he debuted. It is absolutely arguable that Del Rio was more over in the past, that the Big Show feud/move to Raw hurt his momentum, that he stood out more on SD, et. But saying that the goal of putting the title on him in the first place is to get him over is something that strikes me as a gross exaggeration given the reactions and responses the guy has gotten for the vast majority of the time he's been with the company (incidentally he is VERY over with the casual set that I watch ppv's with also for whatever that is worth).

 

Secondly I don't believe that fans should be blamed for being critical either and think there are many ways the WWE could do a better job responding to their fan base. Having said that the push of Punk and his status in the company strikes me of something that is almost assuredly linked to the reactions of the WWE fanbase. He was not a pet project or a favored son or a Vince fetish based on anything that we know. The fact that he is main eventing and the focus of shows now is because of the fact that the WWE decided to listen to the fanbase at least to some degree. One can point to the involvement of Trip or Del Rio's win as proof to the contrary if you like but their are two problems with that thinking. The first of which is that Del Rio's win did nothing to diminish Punk's star and in a bizarre way may have enhanced it given the circumstances. The second point is that - at least up until this point - the HHH stuff has not felt overwhelming to me (much to my surprise) and if anything it has ENHANCED Punk as he is shit talking the king of the castle right to his face, in his company, which fits his image perfectly.

 

A third sub point related to that comment is one that I want to preface by stating that I don't mean it to be dismissive or trollish. You have long been one of my favorite posters on these forums and I respect your opinion on virtually everything even when I disagree. Having said that, I can't think of a single good reason why the WWE would want to listen to the criticisms you make. Based on what I know of your viewing habits from reading this board you are at best a casual viewer of the modern product. You seem indifferent to the WWE at best and generally seem averse to the people who have leadership roles/ownership stakes in the company. I am not arguing that you are unfairly biased against the company - just that you aren't their target audience and while the counter argument that they need to do things to win back fans that left them years ago is a valid one I am very skeptical about it being a sound business strategy. There are a ton of reasons for this that I will expand upon if asked to do so, but basically I think it is more logical for the WWE to try and build a new fanbase/expand the current one they have and hold on to the committed hardcores than it is to try and pander to older fans who abandoned them a decade ago.

 

Finally it may be true that some of us can not be objective when talking about an angle involving Punk. Having said that, that is a two way street. It may in fact be that you can not be objective when talking about an angle that involves HHH. I will grant that there are ample reasons to be skeptical about any storyline involving Trip that doesn't end with him looking like a God and his foe looking like shit. Having said that three of the best angles of the last ten years in wrestling were the Summer of Punk I, the Punk heel turn v. Hardy and the rise of the SES and the Rey feud so there is ample reason to be a "mark" for Punk as well.

 

One can argue that this isn't a "special" angle in the sense that it isn't super shooty, they didn't let Punk roam around the indies/take time off before returning, et. But does it feel like business as usual WWE to me? As a guy who watches as much or more WWE than anyone here I would say absolutely not.

[KrisZ]

I don't think Punk was buried at all. However, I do think the writing is terrible and this is no longer special.

I don't see how it was poor writing. The finish set up a new heel champion with multiple quality challengers.

 

Del Rio is not over enough to be the champion. That's my point. And I have always hated the idea of putting a title on someone to get them over because it never works the way they think it will, yet they never learn.

 

Not sure how they really set him up for success any more than they did Miz either, and Dave going on for months about Miz being someone who can't draw TV ratings ... it just looks like they're setting Del Rio to go down the same path.

 

I do not understand the "They didn't book this exactly how I wanted, so the story is already deader than dead" attitude. I know some of you just hate current WWE and are going to shit on anything and everything they do, but we're going on two months of quality television at this point. At what point do you stop sitting around waiting to be the first to proclaim that they've fucked things up and start enjoying it?

It didn't have to be exactly how I wanted, but this mindset of blaming fans for not enjoying bad TV instead of blaming the people who produce it for its flaws has to stop.

 

I know people here like Punk, but liking Punk is preventing people from being objective.

 

 

I've REALLY been trying to avoid getting to deep into this thread because I think the real issue here is a divide between guys who still regularly watch the current product and have been accustomed to putting up with a certain level of WWE bullshit v. guys who gave up years ago and are going to immediately hone in on obvious deficiencies as a sign of total failure of an angle. Having said that I think this post really deserves a response from someone who clearly falls into category A.

 

For starters Del Rio is over. Period. Is he Austin or The Rock when they won their first title? No. Is he JBL or Jack Swagger when they won their first title? No. He's probably closer to the Miz, accept for the fact that he's better in the ring and his mannerisms seem to generate more heat than any body language tricks Miz tosses around. If you are a hardcore WWE fan - and I fit the definition better than anyone on this forum I would guess - it is pretty much indisputable that Del Rio is over as a heel and has been since the moment he debuted. It is absolutely arguable that Del Rio was more over in the past, that the Big Show feud/move to Raw hurt his momentum, that he stood out more on SD, et. But saying that the goal of putting the title on him in the first place is to get him over is something that strikes me as a gross exaggeration given the reactions and responses the guy has gotten for the vast majority of the time he's been with the company (incidentally he is VERY over with the casual set that I watch ppv's with also for whatever that is worth).

 

Secondly I don't believe that fans should be blamed for being critical either and think there are many ways the WWE could do a better job responding to their fan base. Having said that the push of Punk and his status in the company strikes me of something that is almost assuredly linked to the reactions of the WWE fanbase. He was not a pet project or a favored son or a Vince fetish based on anything that we know. The fact that he is main eventing and the focus of shows now is because of the fact that the WWE decided to listen to the fanbase at least to some degree. One can point to the involvement of Trip or Del Rio's win as proof to the contrary if you like but their are two problems with that thinking. The first of which is that Del Rio's win did nothing to diminish Punk's star and in a bizarre way may have enhanced it given the circumstances. The second point is that - at least up until this point - the HHH stuff has not felt overwhelming to me (much to my surprise) and if anything it has ENHANCED Punk as he is shit talking the king of the castle right to his face, in his company, which fits his image perfectly.

 

A third sub point related to that comment is one that I want to preface by stating that I don't mean it to be dismissive or trollish. You have long been one of my favorite posters on these forums and I respect your opinion on virtually everything even when I disagree. Having said that, I can't think of a single good reason why the WWE would want to listen to the criticisms you make. Based on what I know of your viewing habits from reading this board you are at best a casual viewer of the modern product. You seem indifferent to the WWE at best and generally seem averse to the people who have leadership roles/ownership stakes in the company. I am not arguing that you are unfairly biased against the company - just that you aren't their target audience and while the counter argument that they need to do things to win back fans that left them years ago is a valid one I am very skeptical about it being a sound business strategy. There are a ton of reasons for this that I will expand upon if asked to do so, but basically I think it is more logical for the WWE to try and build a new fanbase/expand the current one they have and hold on to the committed hardcores than it is to try and pander to older fans who abandoned them a decade ago.

 

Finally it may be true that some of us can not be objective when talking about an angle involving Punk. Having said that, that is a two way street. It may in fact be that you can not be objective when talking about an angle that involves HHH. I will grant that there are ample reasons to be skeptical about any storyline involving Trip that doesn't end with him looking like a God and his foe looking like shit. Having said that three of the best angles of the last ten years in wrestling were the Summer of Punk I, the Punk heel turn v. Hardy and the rise of the SES and the Rey feud so there is ample reason to be a "mark" for Punk as well.

 

One can argue that this isn't a "special" angle in the sense that it isn't super shooty, they didn't let Punk roam around the indies/take time off before returning, et. But does it feel like business as usual WWE to me? As a guy who watches as much or more WWE than anyone here I would say absolutely not.

 

I echo everything Dylan said here. WWE business as usual would've had Cena pin Punk clean last night and then Trips screw Cena so ADR could cash it in and what we got was a complete 180. I was hoping for another Punk win but doubted it seriously and last night we got that with some intrique on whether Trips screwed Cena or not, then we got Nash doing his spot and the speculation of his motives, and then we got ADR picking the bones in Los Angeles with a lot of Mexicans at the show to see it. They can still fuck it up but what they have done so far has kept me guessing in a time when I can usually pick what's going to happen and when.

[anarchistxx]

Del Rio really isn't good enough to be anywhere near this angle. He seems a glorified comedy character from what I've seen in the past few weeks, and not in a good 'stooging heel' kind of way. That aside, these Money In The Bank cash ins are getting pretty predictable, and serve to devalue a title if the champion can just be beaten that way constantly. It's a dull way to change a belt and does nothing to get the new champion over. It doesn't even give them much heat anymore, since it has been done so regularly. It's like the new WWE equivalent of the Dusty Finish.

 

Probably best to judge after Raw tonight, but I don't really like his involvement.

[Gregor]

One can point to the involvement of Trip or Del Rio's win as proof to the contrary if you like but their are two problems with that thinking. The first of which is that Del Rio's win did nothing to diminish Punk's star and in a bizarre way may have enhanced it given the circumstances.

I haven't followed WWE in a while, so I hope you don't mind that I'm out of the loop when it comes to a lot of this. All I know is from stuff I've read online.

 

What I'm wondering, from reading this, is why it was decided that Del Rio should get involved. I understand that it builds a new star and doesn't take away any of Punk's credibility. But Punk is the most exciting wrestler the company has, and he's in the company's hottest feud in a long time. Now the feud goes from Punk vs. Cena, with authority figures involved and the title at stake, to Punk vs. Cena, with authority figures and Kevin Nash involved and the title around the waist of someone who had nothing to do with either man until last night.

 

Now, it's less than twenty-four hours after that happened. Maybe they'll reveal that it was a big corporate plot, like with The Rock at Survivor Series, to get the belt away from two guys who can't be trusted. That'd be logical. Either way, though, the fact that all of these people keep getting shoved into the feud takes some focus away from Punk vs. Cena, which only a month ago was by pretty much all accounts a great, captivating angle. Even if it's still good, it's been diluted.

 

Having said that, I can't think of a single good reason why the WWE would want to listen to the criticisms you make. Based on what I know of your viewing habits from reading this board you are at best a casual viewer of the modern product. You seem indifferent to the WWE at best and generally seem averse to the people who have leadership roles/ownership stakes in the company. I am not arguing that you are unfairly biased against the company - just that you aren't their target audience and while the counter argument that they need to do things to win back fans that left them years ago is a valid one I am very skeptical about it being a sound business strategy. There are a ton of reasons for this that I will expand upon if asked to do so, but basically I think it is more logical for the WWE to try and build a new fanbase/expand the current one they have and hold on to the committed hardcores than it is to try and pander to older fans who abandoned them a decade ago.

I don't really understand the difference between trying to build a new fanbase and pandering to fans who abandoned them a decade ago. It's not like Loss is arguing that WWE should go back to doing raunchy angles and showing vehicles getting destroyed. He's saying that the angle could be executed better. "Better angles" doesn't seem like something that would appeal only to former wrestling fans. Unless WWE just markets itself better (which, to be fair, has pretty much been their focus for that last however long it's been), that's pretty much the best way to bring in new fans and retain the interest of current ones.

[Coffey]

I hate the whole idea of Money in the Bank too. Just the whole scenario, where winning a multi-man ladder match equates to basically being able to win the title whenever you want. Now there's TWO a year too, instead of it just being a Wrestlemania gimmick match, it has its own Pay-Per-View.

 

What I'm wondering, from reading this, is why it was decided that Del Rio should get involved.

Because he's Mexican and they're going to Mexico. Rey Mysterio also has his World Title rematch, so I'm sure he'll be involved too.

[Sean Liska]

It's not just the Mexico trip. There have been plans to put the title on him since January. I don't mind it, since Punk's angry rebel character is probably better chasing the title.

[Loss]

I've REALLY been trying to avoid getting to deep into this thread because I think the real issue here is a divide between guys who still regularly watch the current product and have been accustomed to putting up with a certain level of WWE bullshit v. guys who gave up years ago and are going to immediately hone in on obvious deficiencies as a sign of total failure of an angle. Having said that I think this post really deserves a response from someone who clearly falls into category A.

 

For starters Del Rio is over. Period. Is he Austin or The Rock when they won their first title? No. Is he JBL or Jack Swagger when they won their first title? No. He's probably closer to the Miz, accept for the fact that he's better in the ring and his mannerisms seem to generate more heat than any body language tricks Miz tosses around. If you are a hardcore WWE fan - and I fit the definition better than anyone on this forum I would guess - it is pretty much indisputable that Del Rio is over as a heel and has been since the moment he debuted. It is absolutely arguable that Del Rio was more over in the past, that the Big Show feud/move to Raw hurt his momentum, that he stood out more on SD, et. But saying that the goal of putting the title on him in the first place is to get him over is something that strikes me as a gross exaggeration given the reactions and responses the guy has gotten for the vast majority of the time he's been with the company (incidentally he is VERY over with the casual set that I watch ppv's with also for whatever that is worth).

I definitely don't think anyone should be expected to be a star on the level of Austin or Rock (or even Cena) to be considered over. I hope that wasn't how my point was construed, because that's a ridiculous standard that only a few wrestlers in history could achieve. I do think with anyone they put the title on, their goal should be to get them over at that level, whether they fail or succeed. Over in modern terms to me means someone who gets a bigger reaction than most other people on the show. There are plenty of guys on the modern scene who I think are perfectly okay that don't fall into that category -- Morrison (who's been going sideways forever) and Truth are the biggest examples. I personally haven't seen anything to suggest Del Rio is more over than they are. Your comparison was to Miz, which is an interesting comparison because I brought up Miz earlier myself. Miz I guess didn't work out as champ or he'd still be in the title picture. All I ever heard the entire time Miz was champ was how terrible he was for television ratings. Hearing Del Rio comparisons to Miz doesn't get me excited about his prospects, especially because Miz had the reality TV exposure that helped artificially shove him over the top that Del Rio doesn't have.

 

I just feel like we've all seen this movie (Someone wins MITB and has a brief period of stardom before being forgotten about) that I don't think it's a particularly effective path to the top at this point. Again, Miz is the most recent comparison. He headlined Mania and won ... and then ended up in a feud with Alex Riley. Everyone gets a turn at the top in modern WWE. What ever happened to Wade Barrett and Sheamus?

 

Secondly I don't believe that fans should be blamed for being critical either and think there are many ways the WWE could do a better job responding to their fan base. Having said that the push of Punk and his status in the company strikes me of something that is almost assuredly linked to the reactions of the WWE fanbase. He was not a pet project or a favored son or a Vince fetish based on anything that we know. The fact that he is main eventing and the focus of shows now is because of the fact that the WWE decided to listen to the fanbase at least to some degree. One can point to the involvement of Trip or Del Rio's win as proof to the contrary if you like but their are two problems with that thinking. The first of which is that Del Rio's win did nothing to diminish Punk's star and in a bizarre way may have enhanced it given the circumstances. The second point is that - at least up until this point - the HHH stuff has not felt overwhelming to me (much to my surprise) and if anything it has ENHANCED Punk as he is shit talking the king of the castle right to his face, in his company, which fits his image perfectly.

I have said more than once in this thread that I don't think this is a Punk burial. That's a separate argument. I just think it was not a compelling scenario. Yes, Punk can withstand it and stay over, and he likely will, but why is the threshold doing things Punk can withstand right now? There's no movement (or quite frankly, expectation from even their devoted fans) that they try to capitalize on the momentum he got.

 

A third sub point related to that comment is one that I want to preface by stating that I don't mean it to be dismissive or trollish. You have long been one of my favorite posters on these forums and I respect your opinion on virtually everything even when I disagree. Having said that, I can't think of a single good reason why the WWE would want to listen to the criticisms you make.

You don't have to tell me I'm not the target audience for WWE. I'm an early 30s affluent urban gay liberal; I am aware of this. There is nothing in that description that screams target audience for WWE. That said, I'm not sharing my opinions with WWE executives. I'm sharing them with a group of wrestling fans who come closest to watching wrestling the way I do.

 

Can you explain how you think this point has relevance to the topic? I don't think you meant it this way, but it comes across as a personal comment. I don't think it's your style to come at people like that, which is why I'd like you to explain, if you don't mind.

 

Based on what I know of your viewing habits from reading this board you are at best a casual viewer of the modern product. You seem indifferent to the WWE at best and generally seem averse to the people who have leadership roles/ownership stakes in the company. I am not arguing that you are unfairly biased against the company - just that you aren't their target audience and while the counter argument that they need to do things to win back fans that left them years ago is a valid one I am very skeptical about it being a sound business strategy. There are a ton of reasons for this that I will expand upon if asked to do so, but basically I think it is more logical for the WWE to try and build a new fanbase/expand the current one they have and hold on to the committed hardcores than it is to try and pander to older fans who abandoned them a decade ago.

I agree with this. There has never been in history a successful wrestling turnaround built around the idea of luring back old fans. Angles designed to put people on top who were hot at one point tend to fall really flat and play to diminishing returns. The Attitude era is over, and it's not coming back. Competing wrestling promotions are not coming back anytime in this generation either. Some people have had a tougher time coping with that than others.

 

But I do think there is ALWAYS value in looking at concepts that were tried in the past -- both those that did and didn't work -- and then trying to modify them to fit the times, cater to the target audience and add a few twists and tweaks. You could argue that's what all of wrestling is.

 

There are certain basics of wrestling that you can apply to any era of wrestling from any country or promotion in any style that always make it good. Having a champion that feels like the absolute best guy on the roster (not necessarily the best worker, but a guy who could beat anyone anytime) is one of those things. To make it work, he has just enough vulnerability that you have a core group of other guys just below him who fans believe on the right night at their best could beat him. Not only is that element not very strong in WWE right now, it feels like it is 100% completely missing. WWE has historically been built around strong champions when they've been at their best (and sometimes even during dark periods), which is why the Del Rio win annoyed me. The initial intrigue of this that hooked me in was how strongly they put over the belt. That's why the tournament felt like such a strong detour.

 

Finally it may be true that some of us can not be objective when talking about an angle involving Punk. Having said that, that is a two way street. It may in fact be that you can not be objective when talking about an angle that involves HHH. I will grant that there are ample reasons to be skeptical about any storyline involving Trip that doesn't end with him looking like a God and his foe looking like shit. Having said that three of the best angles of the last ten years in wrestling were the Summer of Punk I, the Punk heel turn v. Hardy and the rise of the SES and the Rey feud so there is ample reason to be a "mark" for Punk as well.

 

One can argue that this isn't a "special" angle in the sense that it isn't super shooty, they didn't let Punk roam around the indies/take time off before returning, et. But does it feel like business as usual WWE to me? As a guy who watches as much or more WWE than anyone here I would say absolutely not.

"Special" to me definitely doesn't mean shoot comments and indy appearances. I think that would have turned me off, not to mention that it probably would have gone over the head of their target audience. If anything, HHH's involvement has made this angle seem shootier than it was at one point. The contract signing full of terms like "heel" and "workrate" and even the ironic comment from Punk making fun of contract signings felt like a guy doing MST3K-style commentary making fun of wrestling during a wrestling show. It wasn't Russo-like, but it was like the worst Hall and Nash stuff.

 

"Special" just meant there was a buzz from the fanbase that hadn't been there in a long time. Maybe that's still there to some degree. This thread having so much activity over a modern angle suggests there is still something. But again, as you said, WWE doesn't cater to fans like me, but fans like me seem to be the main ones digging this the most. Not to sound too much like Dave, but there has been no ratings increase and the preliminary buys for MITB didn't reflect the buzz. And I'll say it again (and again and again) -- this is the best thing WWE has done in a very long time. Punk's stock has risen, he had one of the best matches in company history at the last PPV and for a brief period, there was a genuine intrigue to me over where this was going next. But even if there are still people backing this, it's hard to argue that this has the same level of intrigue it had going into MITB. If it was working as well as I'd like (I'd love to see something like this work because it might encourage WWE to try shaking up the status quo a little more), the intrigue would have continued to build over the last two months instead of peaking a few weeks in.

[Dylan Waco]

One can point to the involvement of Trip or Del Rio's win as proof to the contrary if you like but their are two problems with that thinking. The first of which is that Del Rio's win did nothing to diminish Punk's star and in a bizarre way may have enhanced it given the circumstances.

I haven't followed WWE in a while, so I hope you don't mind that I'm out of the loop when it comes to a lot of this. All I know is from stuff I've read online.

 

What I'm wondering, from reading this, is why it was decided that Del Rio should get involved. I understand that it builds a new star and doesn't take away any of Punk's credibility. But Punk is the most exciting wrestler the company has, and he's in the company's hottest feud in a long time. Now the feud goes from Punk vs. Cena, with authority figures involved and the title at stake, to Punk vs. Cena, with authority figures and Kevin Nash involved and the title around the waist of someone who had nothing to do with either man until last night.

 

Now, it's less than twenty-four hours after that happened. Maybe they'll reveal that it was a big corporate plot, like with The Rock at Survivor Series, to get the belt away from two guys who can't be trusted. That'd be logical. Either way, though, the fact that all of these people keep getting shoved into the feud takes some focus away from Punk vs. Cena, which only a month ago was by pretty much all accounts a great, captivating angle. Even if it's still good, it's been diluted.

 

Having said that, I can't think of a single good reason why the WWE would want to listen to the criticisms you make. Based on what I know of your viewing habits from reading this board you are at best a casual viewer of the modern product. You seem indifferent to the WWE at best and generally seem averse to the people who have leadership roles/ownership stakes in the company. I am not arguing that you are unfairly biased against the company - just that you aren't their target audience and while the counter argument that they need to do things to win back fans that left them years ago is a valid one I am very skeptical about it being a sound business strategy. There are a ton of reasons for this that I will expand upon if asked to do so, but basically I think it is more logical for the WWE to try and build a new fanbase/expand the current one they have and hold on to the committed hardcores than it is to try and pander to older fans who abandoned them a decade ago.

I don't really understand the difference between trying to build a new fanbase and pandering to fans who abandoned them a decade ago. It's not like Loss is arguing that WWE should go back to doing raunchy angles and showing vehicles getting destroyed. He's saying that the angle could be executed better. "Better angles" doesn't seem like something that would appeal only to former wrestling fans. Unless WWE just markets itself better (which, to be fair, has pretty much been their focus for that last however long it's been), that's pretty much the best way to bring in new fans and retain the interest of current ones.

 

My point is that Loss idea of better and the fanbase idea of better may not be the same. In fact I would argue that they almost certainly are not the same. I wish Punk had stayed off tv for at least a few weeks and didn't think much of his return promo but other that that I think the angle has been quite good all things considered. I am a WWE hardcore fan and thought a tourney the night after with Punk being ignored was actually the logical thing to do. Loss hated it and thought that was the beginning of the end. Perhaps I'm not the best representative of what a WWE fan would want and perhaps Loss is not the best representative of someone who the WWE should ignore. The point is that those fans who haven't closely followed the product in years are probably not going to find this stuff as entertaining as those of us who have for a variety of reasons and that for those same reasons I'm not certain the WWE gains much by listening to those criticisms (a moot point really..do they listen to any criticisms?)

[jdw]

I know it's not Dylan's goal, but the "you're not the intended audience" comes across as half of another changing the goal post and half exemption of criticism of the angle from people who aren't WWE Luv folks.

 

The analogy would be that we couldn't be critical of the WWF in the 80s if we didn't watch it as much as the NWA. Well... there was a reason we didn't watch it as much: all those things we were critical of.

 

I'd grant that WWF Blinders was a problem for a lot of us: too many failed to see how effective Hogan was as an anchor, or more accurately were jealous as all hell over Hogan's effectiveness in draw relative to Our Hero Ric.

 

But that doesn't mean that it barred one from being critical, or more importantly that one's criticism couldn't be valid.

 

Pushing the analogy further, I suspect that if we had a developed net like we have now, plenty of non-WWF fans would have been critical of Warrior. The "he sucks!" or "Anaolic Warrior" stuff would be of little use, but I suspect we would have had some pretty solid analysis/comment/discussions about him being chose to be Hogan's Heir and whether he'd do well in that role. I'm willing to be that some non-WWF fans would hit it out of the park, regardless of WWF Fans tossing "you're not even a target fan of the WWF" at them.

 

There is value on both sides of the forest issue: being one of the trees, and being someone outside it. Both have some blinders, and both have positives. There certainly were plenty of WCW Fans who rode that boat right on down to the bottom of the ocean, more than watch TNA and frankly more than watch some current "hit" cable TV shows. Positives... blinders... or somewhere in between?

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I specifically said it was not a personal comment and it wasn't. The problem in making that point is that there is almost no way it does not come across as personal no matter how you preface it which again is one of the primary reasons I have done my best to hold my tongue and stay out of this thread.

 

Look at the people who have been more critical of the angle.

 

Look at the people who have been more favorable/looking for the positives in it.

 

This is a pattern that seems to be pretty constant on other boards - those who are WWE fans and/or follow the modern product fall into camp B. Those who are not WWE fans and/or don't follow much about the modern product fall into camp A. There are exceptions and it is not a hard and fast rule but the trends are there. I don't think it's a coincidence, and I don't think it can be chalked up entirely to hysterics from WWE loyalists v. hysterics from Vince haters. It's deeper that hence the talk of target audiences.

 

Now let me be clear. I have no problem with arguing about this stuff, discussing it, et regardless of whether someone is a casual or hardcore fan. I also agree that the angle has not been perfectly booked, that there is still a high liklihood it will be fucked up, et. Where I disagree is that this is business as usual for the WWE, that the angle is already bad, or with the suggestion - and I may be reading you wrong here - that Punk is being eclipsed and losing steam by the things going around him.

 

I also disagree that Punk taking time off with the belt would have felt less shooty than the stuff with HHH but that is a perception issue and I'm not sure I would feel the same way had the Loose Cannon gimmick never happened.

[Matt D]

I don't want to step in the middle of this with a vaguely unrelated question, but did they change the finish at Mania when the Edge injury became apparent? Or was Edge always going over?

[Dylan Waco]

I know it's not Dylan's goal, but the "you're not the intended audience" comes across as half of another changing the goal post and half exemption of criticism of the angle from people who aren't WWE Luv folks.

 

The analogy would be that we couldn't be critical of the WWF in the 80s if we didn't watch it as much as the NWA. Well... there was a reason we didn't watch it as much: all those things we were critical of.

 

I'd grant that WWF Blinders was a problem for a lot of us: too many failed to see how effective Hogan was as an anchor, or more accurately were jealous as all hell over Hogan's effectiveness in draw relative to Our Hero Ric.

 

But that doesn't mean that it barred one from being critical, or more importantly that one's criticism couldn't be valid.

 

Pushing the analogy further, I suspect that if we had a developed net like we have now, plenty of non-WWF fans would have been critical of Warrior. The "he sucks!" or "Anaolic Warrior" stuff would be of little use, but I suspect we would have had some pretty solid analysis/comment/discussions about him being chose to be Hogan's Heir and whether he'd do well in that role. I'm willing to be that some non-WWF fans would hit it out of the park, regardless of WWF Fans tossing "you're not even a target fan of the WWF" at them.

 

There is value on both sides of the forest issue: being one of the trees, and being someone outside it. Both have some blinders, and both have positives. There certainly were plenty of WCW Fans who rode that boat right on down to the bottom of the ocean, more than watch TNA and frankly more than watch some current "hit" cable TV shows. Positives... blinders... or somewhere in between?

 

John

I think the "changing of the goal post" commentary in general is fairly bogus and has a lot to with people just wanting to play "gotcha." Ignoring the initial hyperbole that surrounds any "shoot" promo I think most of the discussion of the angle has been fairly measured with most people waiting for the moment when things go totally off the rails and hit the brick wall of shit. If anything what makes this angle special is the fact that it is a modern WWE angle that does not feel like it has totally fallen apart, gotten boring, or killed someone more than it has helped. Will it get to that point? Probably. But despite missteps it does not feel that way now and I don't think noting the failure of Nexus by this point in it's progression has anything to do with goal posts being changed.

[Loss]

Here's a positive: WWE used the angle as an excuse to lie to GLAAD and avoid a potential sponsor fallout regarding Punk's comments, and when Punk ended up sticking around, no one noticed.

[jdw]

I think we've all seen regular plenty of hardcore Raw viewers bag on the angle at different stages. How much have Dave and Bryan liked it, post-MITB? While they might not be WWE Blind Luv folks, they both generally like Punk a good deal, and sure as heck like a lot more of the WWE than say Loss. There've been a lot of snowflakes handed out, including those five big ones right in the middle of this storyline.

 

There's a desire to lump everyone who is critical of the angle into the WWE Hater column. Dave's been critical left and right, and while the WWE certainly annoys him regularly, calling him a WWE Hater is akin to calling Obama a liberal progressive. Those of us who are liberal progressives kind of laugh at that.

 

I actually think if we looked close at those who liked the angle and have been very light on the criticism, the highest % would be Punk Fans.

 

We have one clear WWE Fan on tOA. He's been hopeful all along, and clearly like Punk. But after each Raw he's not so happy with what they're doing. Then he gets a bit hopeful, then not so happy.

 

I think there are more of those than you're admitting. I think even in this thread, the fans who LOVED!!!! it at the begining aren't as LOVE!!! over time. Will indicated he's still enjoying it / it's making him watch, but I think we've all seen Will write about matches/stuff that he LOVES... and over the last 2-3 weeks it ain't in this thread.

 

John

[Coffey]

I don't want to step in the middle of this with a vaguely unrelated question, but did they change the finish at Mania when the Edge injury became apparent? Or was Edge always going over?

Edge didn't get the news about not being able to wrestle until after seeing his doctor after Wrestlemania, so the match played out as planned.