# WWE Officials Considering Taking Title Off CM Punk Due To Terrible Ratings



## Stad (Apr 6, 2011)

in b4 goofball316 replies bashing Punk again.

Punk is fine, it's the booking.


----------



## Evolution (Sep 23, 2005)

WWE won't care about the ratings while he's making them a literal shit ton of money through merchandise. End of.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

:lmao WWE are so fucked after WM 28.


----------



## Nocturnal (Oct 27, 2008)

We want Ice Cream!


----------



## Punk29 (Nov 19, 2011)

I don't like punk, but i don't think it's his fault, i mean there was 5 more people in that match.


----------



## daemonicwanderer (Aug 24, 2010)

Wsupden said:


> rajah.com
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this is just some bullshit report by Meltzer and not true.


The rating isn't. But I doubt the situation is as serious as they are making it out to be.


----------



## Randy Orton Trapper Of The Year (Aug 11, 2010)

Evolution said:


> WWE won't care about the ratings while he's making them a literal shit ton of money through merchandise. End of.


I agree and that's why I hope this is just bullshit. Truth be told if he was stripped of the title and it was given to ADR or Cena I doubt ratings would bounce back at all.


----------



## METALLICA_RULES (Feb 12, 2011)

Why has CM Punk been rating low? He's not bad or anything.


----------



## Leechmaster (Jan 25, 2009)

lol @ these reports and the mindless sheep who "baah" about ratings. 

Ratings suck in general because the product stinks and wrestling simply isn't popular anymore. Pining the ratings on one person is absolutely ridiculous - the ratings will continue to suck regardless of who has the belt. People have bitched about ratings with Cena, Orton, Punk, Christian, Del Rio, Miz, etc. over the past year...don't people see a trend here? 

Also doesn't help that this is the holiday week for most people.

Punk's making a load of money through merch sales anyways, so he's definitely having a positive effect on the WWE.


----------



## Nocturnal (Oct 27, 2008)

Punk29 said:


> I don't like punk, but i don't think it's his fault, i mean there was 5 more people in that match.


5 out of the 6 were all former world champions. Says a lot really.


----------



## Randy Orton Trapper Of The Year (Aug 11, 2010)

Nocturnal said:


> 5 out of the 6 were all former world champions. Says a lot really.


Yeah, if it was Edge, Batista and John Cena vs. Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Randy Orton the ratings wouldn't be as low. It's more of an indication as to how the product is doing, not one single person.


----------



## Punk29 (Nov 19, 2011)

Evolution said:


> WWE won't care about the ratings while he's making them a literal shit ton of money through merchandise. End of.


*Originally Posted by rcc *
_"Yet again you spurt absolute BS and no one calls you out on it. Considering I work in marketing, it pisses me off that you talk this rubbish on a daily basis and pass it off as fact.

Ratings are still the most important thing to any TV business. You and your fellow indy wrasslin' smarks seem to think that Nielsen is antiquated. I've proven time and time again it's still a great system and it's what the TV networks and advertisers use every day. If it were so bad, why wouldn't the power brokers ditch it? Believe me, they analyse every single statistic so that their advertising dollar goes to the right place.

Which is WWE's largest revenue stream? Is it live events, is it Punk's ugly ass TV shirt? No, it's TV revenue. How the fuck do you think they're going to gain revenue from their new TV network? Advertising. How do you get money from advertisers? Ratings.

I bet you'll say, "the internet is changing the world" blah blah blah. Twitter doesn't make the WWE any money whatsoever and money is all that matters (funny, I read one of you say WWE doesn't care about money). Ratings are still vitally critical and it's no surprise their growth has been slow in this period of TV decline.

ttp://corporate.wwe.com/documents/Q32011EarningsCallAdvisory_FINAL.pdf

Just to help you out, a bit of reading there for you, maybe you'll come back with some sort of idea (unlikely, but try nonetheless)."_


----------



## God Movement (Aug 3, 2011)

If they take the title off Punk for a reason like that I'll probably stop watching. Report is probably bullshit though, they can't HONESTLY think Punk is the only one responsible for this, if at all with the reactions he gets and merchandise he moves. They can't really be that stupid.


----------



## TankOfRate (Feb 21, 2011)

Well. That's stupid and entirely representative of the shoddy booking/decisions of the past few years.

Newsflash: It's going to take a while for uprising talent to become established. A wacky concept, I know. For the first time in too damn long, they're experimenting. They're trying out new things, trying out new talent and slowly phasing fully established names like Cena out of the top spots while slowly phasing in newer names. Of course ratings, buyrates and so on will fluctuate. It's going to take time for fans to get used to the changes and get used to seeing something different, but for god's sake, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the WWE to get terrified of numbers and drop anything that is new and slightly different. 

They desperately NEED new stars. They need top stars more than they need 3.2s, that's for sure. They have GOT to take a chance for once. Long-term payoff means a hell of a lot more than short-term gain. Guys like Punk, Del Rio, Bryan, Ziggler, Ryder, Miz and so on are way too talented to have the carpet pulled out from underneath them time and time again for the most ridiculous of reasons. These guys are good, but they won't become greats until they get given the time, opportunities and patience given to Cena and other big stars. I hope to god this report is BS, and if not, I hope to god the WWE don't actually think like this.


----------



## Chocolate Soup (Oct 29, 2011)

taking the belt off punk could only be good for business. his merch would continue to sell great and they'd get better ratings. it would probably help his rebellious image too to not hold WWE's symbol, the WWE title


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I hope and think it's false.


----------



## Kratosx23 (Nov 1, 2004)

HAHAHAHA worthless indy jobber cunt. Told you he couldn't draw, we need to put the belt on Rock pronto.










Or, let's try this again. He's making tons of money on merchandise, so it won't matter.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta (Sep 26, 2004)

I could've written this "report"...

... and if they really did take the belt off Punk, then who else are they going to put it on? Cena? That's not going to help the future of the company. What they need to do is not put Punk in matches in the slots that usually gain viewers, and instead let him cut promos, build up his feuds, or do something that people care to see him doing (which is cut promos) in the 9pm, 10pm, or Overrun slots. Put his matches in the quarter hours somewhere since they don't do well drawing wise anyway, unless he's facing someone like Cena who's a draw all around.



> WWE won't care about the ratings while he's making them a literal shit ton of money through merchandise. End of.


Truth.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Fuck my life. That means Bryan is Probably on the chop and block too. Eh, it was good while it lasted. They obviously don't have main stream appeal. Oh well, the company is about making money and that's the goal, obviously cena makes the company the most money.


----------



## Coyotex (Jun 28, 2011)

they'll just throw it on cena not like if we dident see that comeing


----------



## #BadNewsSanta (Sep 26, 2004)

Not to mention with the fact Rock/Cena will be the big draw of Raw on the road to WM (and that time does better than any other time of the year anyway), there's no point in taking the belt off Punk until after WM if his matches still don't draw.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

TV revenue is much more of a priority than merch so I can see why they would be worried, but the thing I can't understand is why they can't see the real problem? For years they've only protected a few wrestlers while the rest were completely expose. They should have protected Punk and have a more concrete plan rather then relying on the hype that was build around him.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

BS report is BS. Dirtsheets will type up anything for a viewer to read their site.

It makes no sense either and Pyro/Evolution pretty much explained it anyways.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

I honestly had a dream yesterday of Bryan losing the Title today on SD to Orton. Looks like my dream may become reality.


----------



## krai999 (Jan 30, 2011)

save us jericho


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

:lmao

Ratings don't matter. 

So much for Punk main eventing at WM.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> BS report is BS. Dirtsheets will type up anything for a viewer to read their site.
> 
> It makes no sense either and Pyro/Evolution pretty much explained it anyways.


To be fair, they are right many times of what they report.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

What does throwing the belt back on Cena accomplish? I don't see it.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> What does throwing the belt back on Cena accomplish? I don't see it.


Ratings.


----------



## CC91 (Jan 7, 2008)

I knew the higher ups were waiting for any excuse to push him right back down to the mid card. 

I dont believe the report one bit though


----------



## sonicslash (Sep 9, 2011)

How could they possibly think this is all Punks fault. His segments are the only bearable ones on Raw. Cena is good, but he doesn't need to be champ. It would be a major step backwards


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

This is bad news for Bryan and Ryder more than it is for Punk though. I don't really think it was because of Punk at all. When you have a guy who just all of the sudden wins a title after being booked like a low midcarder and instantly thrown into the main event(Bryan) and Zack Ryder who quite honestly is shit in every aspect and doesn't deserve to be in the main event at all, your gonna get these types of ratings.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

We can only hope smack down gets a 1.5


----------



## Punk29 (Nov 19, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> BS report is BS. Dirtsheets will type up anything for a viewer to read their site.
> 
> It makes no sense either and Pyro/Evolution pretty much explained it anyways.


They explained nothing bro,raitings do matter, like it or not:sad:.


----------



## A-C-P (Jan 5, 2010)

TankOfRate said:


> Well. That's stupid and entirely representative of the shoddy booking/decisions of the past few years.
> 
> Newsflash: It's going to take a while for uprising talent to become established. A wacky concept, I know. For the first time in too damn long, they're experimenting. They're trying out new things, trying out new talent and slowly phasing fully established names like Cena out of the top spots while slowly phasing in newer names. Of course ratings, buyrates and so on will fluctuate. It's going to take time for fans to get used to the changes and get used to seeing something different, but for god's sake, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the WWE to get terrified of numbers and drop anything that is new and slightly different.
> 
> They desperately NEED new stars. They need top stars more than they need 3.2s, that's for sure. They have GOT to take a chance for once. Long-term payoff means a hell of a lot more than short-term gain. Guys like Punk, Del Rio, Bryan, Ziggler, Ryder, Miz and so on are way too talented to have the carpet pulled out from underneath them time and time again for the most ridiculous of reasons. These guys are good, but they won't become greats until they get given the time, opportunities and patience given to Cena and other big stars. I hope to god this report is BS, and if not, I hope to god the WWE don't actually think like this.


Great Post, agree 100%. Throw the belt back on Cena make the Rock/Cena match at WM for the title just so you can keep your 3.2 rating steady, and then what in 5 years when Cena can't go full-time anymore and you've m=not invested anytime building new stars then they will really be up Shit's creek and will have NO PADDLES.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

sonicslash said:


> How could they possibly think this is all Punks fault. His segments are the only bearable ones on Raw. Cena is good, but he doesn't need to be champ. It would be a major step backwards


To be fair, Punk has been boring as shit on the mic for a while now. His segment when he excepted the award was hard to watch.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Theproof said:


> This is bad news for Bryan and Ryder more than it is for Punk though. I don't really think it was because of Punk at all. When you have a guy who just all of the sudden wins a title after being booked like a low midcarder and instantly thrown into the main event(Bryan) and Zack Ryder who quite honestly is shit in every aspect and doesn't deserve to be in the main event at all, your gonna get these types of ratings.



Lol don't throw Ryder in this. He actually had build, sells merch, and is over with non smark cities. He only one the mid card belt too. Bryan on the other hand is going to dip smack down to ratings more worse than Orton.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Yikes. That's pretty bad. But then again, we bash WCW all the time for jumping at the sign of each & every ratings rise or dip. Lets see if it becomes a trend first.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Punk29 said:


> They explained nothing bro,raitings do matter, like it or not:sad:.


They really don't and Evo pretty much really did. Ratings don't matter, no matter who is the champion, because it's an arcadic philosophy for wrestling.


----------



## Mr Premium (Nov 15, 2011)

Blah blah blah terrible booking. Blah blah blah the product just stinks.

Funny that ratings only started dipping below 3.0 *when he became the champion*. How do you guys explain that then?

Not even ADR, Sheamus and Miz's title reigns didn't rate this badly.


----------



## Choke2Death (Jul 26, 2011)

Fuck that, take the risk and eventually CM Punk will draw better for ratings. They can't just expect ratings skyrocket because somebody who's over gets the title and when the ratings don't go to 7.0, quickly panic and go back to status quo, aka putting the title on Cena. Even Cena has lost viewers in recent memory during his segments so it's just a matter of do or die for WWE. They can't just rely on Cena for their entire life. The guy is a human being, not a reliable robot that will never get out of date, meaning Cena will also retire at some point, during which they are fucked if they haven't taken the chance of creating new stars.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

The belts a joke anyway. Just give it to Rock and he can retire it. 

Then when Rocks gone, they can have a series of matches on Raw leading to a showdown for the new title on a PPV.

Could create new storylines/feuds with the wrestlers in the tournament being championship matches or not.

Lots of opportunities would open up for current and new superstars. :agree:


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't see Cena winning the title translating to ratings. The belt was off him for 10 months and the ratings were fine.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

Theproof said:


> :lmao
> 
> Ratings don't matter.
> 
> So much for Punk main eventing at WM.


:lmao

and Punk wasn't in the main event of WM anyway, lol he's not even in the second biggest match. I told you guys, Vince gave him a chance so you can't blame him, but he bombed in a ridiculous way, comedy way for me personally, I wrote when the viewership came that I hope the main event segment did terrible, not only it was terrible but the worst main event segment in 14 years, great. because if that's what Vince needs to realize that people want to see larger than life personality and presence and not midgets and their meaningless indy stories? awesome. 

Next week in Chicago, Kane/Punk for the title, Kane new WWE champion.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

A-C-P said:


> Great Post, agree 100%. Throw the belt back on Cena make the Rock/Cena match at WM for the title just so you can keep your 3.2 rating steady, and then what in 5 years when Cena can't go full-time anymore and you've m=not invested anytime building new stars then they will really be up Shit's creek and will have NO PADDLES.


Yes, But Punk is Definitely not the guy to get behind at this point. As much of a mark I am for the guy he just does not have main stream appeal. He goes to inside the company and obviously people are at a lost on what the hell he's saying. The guys to get behind now are probably, Barrett, Orton, Cena, Cody, Miz and Sheamus. These other guys are for the "10%ers" like us.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> They really don't and Evo pretty much really did. Ratings don't matter, no matter who is the champion, because it's an arcadic philosophy for wrestling.


So when the usa make a new contract for raw they surely wont give them less, sponsors wont care neither.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

The funny thing is I said this was gonna happen a couple of days after Bryan won the championship. Once Vince sees the ratings take a dip he will go in full out panic mode and go back to his old routine of putting the belt on guys like Cena instead of giving these guys time to establish themselves.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

TankOfRate said:


> Well. That's stupid and entirely representative of the shoddy booking/decisions of the past few years.
> 
> Newsflash: It's going to take a while for uprising talent to become established. A wacky concept, I know. For the first time in too damn long, they're experimenting. They're trying out new things, trying out new talent and slowly phasing fully established names like Cena out of the top spots while slowly phasing in newer names. Of course ratings, buyrates and so on will fluctuate. It's going to take time for fans to get used to the changes and get used to seeing something different, but for god's sake, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the WWE to get terrified of numbers and drop anything that is new and slightly different.
> 
> They desperately NEED new stars. They need top stars more than they need 3.2s, that's for sure. They have GOT to take a chance for once. Long-term payoff means a hell of a lot more than short-term gain. Guys like Punk, Del Rio, Bryan, Ziggler, Ryder, Miz and so on are way too talented to have the carpet pulled out from underneath them time and time again for the most ridiculous of reasons. These guys are good, but they won't become greats until they get given the time, opportunities and patience given to Cena and other big stars. I hope to god this report is BS, and if not, I hope to god the WWE don't actually think like this.


Exactly. Could you have imagined WWE pulling the rug off Austin, Rock, HHH, and Foley had WWE just kept going with the Taker/Bret/HBK/Sid run? Holy crap.



> So when the usa make a new contract for raw they surely wont give them less, sponsors wont care neither.


It's one of, if not the, highest rated shows in their network and they draw for the network anyways.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> :lmao
> 
> and Punk wasn't in the main event of WM anyway, lol he's not even in the second biggest match. I told you guys, Vince gave him a chance so you can't blame him, but he bombed in a ridiculous way, comedy way for me personally, I wrote when the viewership came that I hope the main event segment did terrible, not only it was terrible but the worst main event segment in 14 years, great. because if that's what Vince needs to realize that people want to see larger than life personality and presence and not midgets and their meaningless indy stories? awesome.
> 
> Next week in Chicago, Kane/Punk for the title, Kane new WWE champion.


Booking is not to blame for Punk, it is all his fault
But Rock drawing 160k domestic for SS, blame booking.
8*D

WWE dead in 5 years so meh


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Vince just needs to be patient. And if Cena/Rock is for the title I will not be happy.


----------



## alliance (Jul 10, 2010)

CM Punk is plain BOOOOOOOOORING 

as a wrestling fan i want to be Entertained for my efforts [efforts like sitting my ass on the couch] and punk is just a ONE TRICK PONY, and those are just the facts.. 

he's a complete botcher and his wrestling ability is past his best im afraid, his character is simply uninteresting and he really needs to step his game up, i used to be a punk fan but hes lost me completely and thats pretty sad


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I see nothing boring about Punk. He entertains me greatly.


----------



## 1TheGreatOne1 (Jul 17, 2011)

For fuck sake fpalm

It's not got to do with Punk, he 100% completely over, he gets the biggest pops.
The ratings are not his fault.. the product overall is fucking CRAP.
Putting the belt back on Cena is not going to change anything but prove the WWE are incapable of change. They need to stick with Punk & work on the product !!

Learn some patience Vince, you moron. Have some faith in your current stars.


----------



## Chicago Warrior (Oct 18, 2010)

This seems like a OK Ratings are down so Meltzer brings out "newz" on a slow week. I mean how does Meltzer even get his info? Ratings are down overall I agree, and if you take a quick look at the RAW matches everything lost viewers other than the John Cena segments and some of the CM Punk segments. I really hate the mentality that one person draws the whole show rating whether Orton or Punk, but the problem IMO is through-out the show. WWE has failed to keep viewers through out the show that they don't even bother to even take a look at the main event IMO. John Cena is really the only proven draw on the show and his segments do bring the most viewers, but John Cena is still featured alot in the show which brings me to the question of why ratings are not higher than they should be. So as this report says does WWE only really care about what draws in the main event? or the whole rating of the show? 2 weeks ago John Cena vs Mark Henry in the main event did draw over 400,000 viewers but the whole show got a 2.9 rating which was the same as this week. John Cena vs Alberto Del Rio headlining for Vengeance was one of the lowest PPVs in the history of WWE as well. Right now they don't have any credible opponents for Punk to face, and I think a CM Punk vs Triple H feud would do alot better IMO.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Punk Vs. Cena at RR. Cena winning belt. Basically what I see going down. And Orton Killing Bryan also.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> Punk Vs. Cena at RR. Cena winning belt. Basically what I see going down. And Orton Killing Bryan also.


This better not happen!


----------



## KiNgoFKiNgS23 (Feb 13, 2008)

yea the most over guy in the company and one of their top merchandise sellers is the reason the ratings are low.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Chicago Warrior said:


> This seems like a OK Ratings are down so Meltzer brings out "newz" on a slow week. I mean how does Meltzer even get his info? Ratings are down overall I agree, and if you take a quick look at the RAW matches everything lost viewers other than the John Cena segments and some of the CM Punk segments. I really hate the mentality that one person draws the whole show rating whether Orton or Punk, but the problem IMO is through-out the show. WWE has failed to keep viewers through out the show that they don't even bother to even take a look at the main event IMO. John Cena is really the only proven draw on the show and his segments do bring the most viewers, but John Cena is still featured alot in the show which brings me to the question of why ratings are not higher than they should be. So as this report says does WWE only really care about what draws in the main event? or the whole rating of the show? 2 weeks ago John Cena vs Mark Henry in the main event did draw over 400,000 viewers but the whole show got a 2.9 rating which was the same as this week. John Cena vs Alberto Del Rio headlining for Vengeance was one of the lowest PPVs in the history of WWE as well. Right now they don't have any credible opponents for Punk to face, and I think a CM Punk vs Triple H feud would do alot better IMO.




Its scary how every year ratings keep getting less and less. Soon below 3.0 is gonna be the norm if something is not done. The rock can save them this road to wresletmania but what about next year. The wwe are screwed worser than a 5 dollar hooker.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Its scary how every year ratings keep getting less and less. Soon below 3.0 is gonna be the norm if something is not done. The rock can save them this road to wresletmania but what about next year. The wwe are screwed worser than a 5 dollar hooker.


And they have nobody but themselves to blame for this.


----------



## Fabregas (Jan 15, 2007)

CM Punk - "If you can't get behind this, you will be left behind."

Later that week.



> F4WOnline.com reports that WWE officials are considering taking the WWE Championship off CM Punk due to 'terrible ratings patterns' for his weekly segments on Raw.


:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

People are misunderstanding the situation. The rating itself is not the problem
It's that the top 2 guys and Ryder vs the "top heels" and Ziggler only gained 59k.
A 59k gain in a spot that usually gains more than several hundred thousand viewers is troubling.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Its scary how every year ratings keep getting less and less. Soon below 3.0 is gonna be the norm if something is not done. The rock can save them this road to wresletmania but what about next year. The wwe are screwed worser than a 5 dollar hooker.


Exactly, Rock is a short term fix. They had a possible MEGA Star in Christian considering he was bringing in Ratings and PPV Buys, and he's still in good shape, but Orton killed him. Christian Honestly could have been an Ideal part in saving the company, he also has mainstream appeal. He got fucked over so bad.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

I'm not surprised by this at all. 

His segment last week was atrocious, one of the worse this year. 

Probably the reason the viewers turned off for the main event.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

I think people thought a whole Summer was going to bring about high ratings and high viewership so of course the disappointment was going to be there. I don't care about that and was highly entertained throughout most of the summer so that;s why I felt it was a good start. I think true wrestling fans understand that, in this aspect, we have to be patient and see what unfolds from this rather than just shoot down any plans outright. I also think other wrestlers need to realize that they need to step there game up, now more than ever, if they want to get any type of recognition that they can do this.

Does WWE have the chance to screw with us again? Oh, sure. Definitely. But outright, irrational pessimism isn't going to help the problem either.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

Fabregas said:


> CM Punk - "If you can't get behind this, you will be left behind."
> 
> Later that week.
> 
> ...


I lol'd at this too. Looks like he's the one that might be left behind. He needs something like this to humble him. Dude is mad delusional.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I liked the Punk segment. People may not have liked it. I did.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> Exactly, Rock is a short term fix. They had a possible MEGA Star in Christian considering he was bringing in Ratings and PPV Buys, and he's still in good shape, but Orton killed him. Christian Honestly could have been an Ideal part in saving the company, he also has mainstream appeal. He got fucked over so bad.


Speaking of Orton they need to send him back to raw as a heel. They need everyone they can get right know. Possibly start a storyline to turn miz face.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

Now I don't see Cena turning heel anytime soon. If they don't have another guy they can use as the top face than doing that is just too risky.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Cena could still draw as a heel. Plus Punk going over a heel Cena would be a great way to establish him further in my opinion.


----------



## Chicago Warrior (Oct 18, 2010)

Believe it or not but I still think CM Punk needs to be put over in a massive way, and no I don't count "cheap" wins over Cena and beating Alberto Del Rio clean as being put over. Heck CM Punk didn't even beat Triple H.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Well, when he speaks, Punk does sound like a voice recorder, so maybe he should just get one and have The Rock on loop.

People keep moaning about him _"never being here"_ and the ratings would improve too...


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

I hope they do. Punk is a papper champion, a complete hypocrite and a boring character to boot. Everything he says and does is both fake and gay.

End of discussion


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

lolcolephelps

Cena turning heel will benefit for the long run. Orton turning heel doesn't. He's fine as a face right now and is one of the most over people on the roster anyways.

I think people are pressing the panic button too much for irrational reasons.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Cole Phelps said:


> I hope they do. Punk is a papper champion, a complete hypocrite and a boring character to boot. Everything he does and says is both fake and gay.
> 
> End of discussion




His character is really annoying especially when he was fighting hhh i was actually glad hhh dominated him on the mic. Hes like that one loud mouth ass hole in high school that just trys to be witty but fails when he gets put in his place.


----------



## Azuran (Feb 17, 2009)

It's nice to know Vince hasn't gone completely senile. Punk has been a complete failure as champion, and the sooner he loses the title, the better. Hopefuly he never sniffs the title again after this.

The people have spoken. They rather be left behind than have people like Punk and Bryan holding the belts. You also Gotta love the damage control from the Punk marks.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I think honestly Punk is great and can go toe to toe with anybody on the mic.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> lolcolephelps
> 
> Cena turning heel will benefit for the long run. Orton turning heel doesn't. He's fine as a face right now and is one of the most over people on the roster anyways.
> 
> I think people are pressing the panic button too much for irrational reasons.



His ratings as a face champion on raw and smack down say otherwise. Orton was a draw in 09 when he was a heel. Plus i don't think they will turn cena heel after they found a way to make a profit off the cena hate. Like it or not cena is not going heel.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> His ratings as a face champion on raw and smack down say otherwise. Orton was a draw in 09 when he was a heel. Plus i don't think they will turn cena heel after they found a way to make a profit off the cena hate. Like it or not cena is not going heel.


Isn't WWE making Anti-Cena shirts? If Cena turns heel don't you think the women and children could pay money for those shirts?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

And put it on who instead?


----------



## Mr Premium (Nov 15, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> lolcolephelps
> 
> Cena turning heel will benefit for the long run. Orton turning heel doesn't. He's fine as a face right now and is one of the most over people on the roster anyways.
> 
> *I think people are pressing the panic button too much for irrational reasons.*


So you think they should wait till the ratings drop to Diesel-levels for them to do something?

WWE is a business after all. It's been a proven fact that shtloads of people just really can't get behind him and relate to his character at all.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

C_JBennett said:


> And put it on who instead?


Cena


----------



## muttgeiger (Feb 16, 2004)

Sucks if true. Can't say you didn't see it coming, if you have been paying attention though. Not sure going back to cena or orton will have any real noticeable positive affect though either. I think wrestling is just not where it's at right now and the product just isn't as interesting, from the booking/writing to the talent themselves. Everything is much too bland.


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

C_JBennett said:


> And put it on who instead?


Sheamus


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

WWE needs to wait. Ratings go down one time and all of a sudden they want to take the belt off of him? People are getting behind Punk. The crowds and merchandise show that.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> His ratings as a face champion on raw and smack down say otherwise. Orton was a draw in 09 when he was a heel. Plus i don't think they will turn cena heel after they found a way to make a profit off the cena hate. Like it or not cena is not going heel.


You read into that wrong.

Orton is fine as a face since he is actually starting to put over talent and has made the gimmick work as a babyface recently. Turning him heel would deflect all that effort that was put in this year.

Cena has to turn heel at Mania 28 or else his popularity will go even further down to the point where a heel turn won't even mean anything. He's facing the Rock so he'll be a heel during the match until it's made official when he beats him at Mania and does his post match attack. 

The heel turn has been planted for months now, by the way.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> Cena


Hmm... another boring Cena reign? That sounds awesome. Screw building a story or anything like that and let's just put it on Cena until he retires.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I say that if Vince puts it back on Cena, that we stop watching and then see what happens. Not permanently of course, just until Cena's reign is over.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> Isn't WWE making Anti-Cena shirts? If Cena turns heel don't you think the women and children could pay money for those shirts?


They are already paying for his face shirts. With the haters buying the anti cena shirts. If he turns heel the kids will want to buy another face shirt. Maybe women would buy the anti cena shirts but alot less than men will.


----------



## DanTheMan07 (Sep 27, 2010)

Apparently a lot of people took CM Punks ultimatum serious, and they're out..


----------



## TankOfRate (Feb 21, 2011)

C_JBennett said:


> And put it on who instead?


Cena. And leave it on him until the day he dies. Or retires, whichever comes first. "Yes Ladies and Gentlemen; The Champ Is _Still_ Here!" Problem solved~!


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

DanTheMan07 said:


> Apparently a lot of people took CM Punks ultimatum serious, and they're out..


I'm out watching this nerds of doom stable proves how p.g wrestling has become imo


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> I say that if Vince puts it back on Cena, that we stop watching and then see what happens. Not permanently of course, just until Cena's reign is over.


No ones going to that. There are too many people on this site that are just drones for the WWE and support all the garbage they do. Basically they are Robots.


----------



## DoubleDeckerBar (Aug 10, 2011)

OMG it isn't hard, just move Mark Henry over to Raw and ratings will sky rocket, how many times does he have to prove his drawing power?


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

DanTheMan07 said:


> Apparently a lot of people took CM Punks ultimatum serious, and they're out..


:lmao


And about a new champion? Kane is hot right now, give him the belt, things will improve immediately.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782023 said:


> You read into that wrong.
> 
> Orton is fine as a face since he is actually starting to put over talent and has made the gimmick work as a babyface recently. Turning him heel would deflect all that effort that was put in this year.
> 
> ...




Orton has been out of the tittle picture right know to help put over people. He already has helped Barret and Rhodes alot. If he turns heel he can rescue punk. Punk needs a credible opponent not Del Rio or miz and lol cenas planed to turn heel for months. You work in the wwe or something? Thats what everyone else said when the nexus angle ran. Until i see it happen it has not happened.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> I say that if Vince puts it back on Cena, that we stop watching and then see what happens. Not permanently of course, just until Cena's reign is over.


I did that once, 2 1/2 years later I tune back and he is the number one contender loses at mania but wins at the next PPV.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> :lmao
> 
> 
> And about a new champion? Kane is hot right now, give him the belt, things will improve immediately.


Hate to say it, he's right. I hate Kane but he has MASSIVE mainstream appeal. I doubt ratings would dip below a 3.0 if he was the champ.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Cole Phelps said:


> I'm out watching this nerds of doom stable proves how p.g wrestling has become imo


It doesn't help when your WWE Champion is acting like the GOD of the Indies now does it. Seriously, you think he came up with the concept, acts like he's the only one whos been there, done it. There's good reason to hate Punk beside beeing entertaining or not. 
The guys an ass, period.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> No ones going to that. There are too many people on this site that are just drones for the WWE and support all the garbage they do. Basically they are Robots.


I know I myself would do that. I said a couple times this year I wouldn't watch Smackdown with Orton as champ. Guess what? I didn't. I didn't begin watching Smackdown again until Orton lost it.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jun 28, 2011)

The WWE do this and I will stop watching. Not because I am a fan of CM Punk but because taking it off him for ratings after just over a month of having the belt is the stupidest thing I've heard. His reign at the moment has already been better than some of the title holders of the year, the WWE need a lengthy reign for their title.

All the best things in the past didn't happen over the night. They took weeks, months, somethings even years of perseverance for fans to get going. Give him a lengthy reign, book matches right, give PPV and more importantly TITLE matches build up, make the title mean something and you will see ratings. 

At this moment in time, the WWE title will bring in more ratings than the WHC or the US title or the IC title. Every title at the moment honestly has the same prestige. You've got to give superstars that ability to make that title special.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> *Orton has been out of the tittle picture right know to help put over people. He already has helped Barret and Rhodes alot.* If he turns heel he can rescue punk. Punk needs a credible opponent not Del Rio or miz.


Gee, that's what I just said.

He is needed on Smackdown because no other face can take his spot right now and he is just starting to carry that brand since Edge retired. Turning him heel will do him, and the brand, no favors. The only faces on there left are Sheamus and Bryan and neither man can carry that brand right now like Orton.

Punk doesn't need to be rescued. And the WWE title doesn't need to be passed around anymore than it has lately, which is pretty much what everybody is asking for them to do (ala status quo). Waiting until everything plays out heading into Wrestlemania 28 would be the logical thing to do but if we're going to keep bitching about this and that at a constant pace like this, no wonder WWE never sees to change because that section (very, *very* small section) is never satisfied no matter what.


----------



## Azuran (Feb 17, 2009)

DanTheMan07 said:


> Apparently a lot of people took CM Punks ultimatum serious, and they're out..


That's what he gets for opening his big mouth. Just goes to show that Punk is delusional just like his fans. He deserves it for letting his huge ego get the best of him.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't know how people could say CM Punk doesn't have mainstream appeal. He is one of the very select few in WWE who does, in my opinion.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Azuran said:


> That's what he gets for opening his big mouth. Just goes to show that Punk is delusional just like him. He deserves it for letting his ego get the best of him.


Yeah, because no top champion has ever had any ego like his, if not worse.

Stop.

And LOL at Kane having mainstream appeal. Yeah, how did his 2010 World title reign change the business? And Punk doesn't have appeal? Wow.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

LOL @ Cena heel turn planted for months, nobody even talked about that, people only talked about semi turn before WM, Rock going over, Cena is back as a babyface, funny kids here. anyway, the only reason Orton was in mid card feuds for a few months, because he's winning the Rumble match in his hometown, so he's not turning...

BTW, since Punk won the title, RAW is below 3.0 every week.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I see nothing corny about Punk's promos. I see nothing sloppy about his matches.


----------



## Dice Darwin (Sep 7, 2010)

Punk needs a 5 year superman push. Then he'll be as popular as Cena.


----------



## SpeedStick (Feb 11, 2010)

They won't do it the belt on Cena or HHH will do nothing because there is no top heel for Cena or HHH to wrestle..CM Punk title run will be terrible because there is no bad-ass heel where is Jericho?, where is Edge?, where is Batista? Ok Kane is back good thing there..


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

None of these guys are draws but I have to be honest. It should show management that whenever this guy shows up on tv ratings dip. Obviously he shouldn't be released but maybe now they'll know John Cena shouldn't be just thrown on the back burner.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Gee, that's what I just said.
> 
> He is needed on Smackdown because no other face can take his spot right now and he is just starting to carry that brand since Edge retired. Turning him heel will do him, and the brand, no favors. The only faces on there left are *Sheamus *and Bryan and neither man can carry that brand right now like Orton.
> 
> Punk doesn't need to be rescued. And the WWE title doesn't need to be passed around anymore than it has lately, which is pretty much what everybody is asking for them to do (ala status quo). Waiting until everything plays out heading into Wrestlemania 28 would be the logical thing to do but if we're going to keep bitching about this and that at a constant pace like this, no wonder WWE never sees to change because that section (very, *very* small section) is never satisfied no matter what.




Why you think he has been give better booking that Orton? He is winning the rumble and is gonna be the face of smack down. Sheamus has been given time know and is over with the fans. They can turn christian face have him be the second top face and move Del Rio to smack down give Barret money in the bank and smack down will be okay. Punk needs to get over on the A show right know where more people watch though if 2.9 turns into the norm the gap between raw and smack down will be less.


----------



## Snothlisberger (Sep 26, 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong but USA gets the revenue from advertising sells, not WWE. USA pays WWE a licensing fee to air the programs. As long as WWE stays constantly where they are, I seriously doubt they aren't meeting their requirements in their licensing fee contract.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

> LOL @ Cena heel turn planted for months,


I understand you weren't paying attention with the Rock hype and all. Sensible. That said, yes it has been planted for months with the way they are building Cena's character to be. From the Rock's return this year to the Summer of Punk to the noticeable crowd reactions lately of Cena's character.

As a matter of fact, Kane could be seen as helping Cena rather than hurting him with this feud if you really pay attention.



> Why you think he has been give better booking that Orton? He is winning the rumble and is gonna be the face of smack down. Sheamus has been given time know and is over with the fans. They can turn christian face have him be the second top face and move Del Rio to smack down give Barret money in the bank and smack down will be okay. Punk needs to get over on the A show right know where more people watch though if 2.9 turns into the norm the gap between raw and smack down will be less.


He's been given good booking because Smackdown, and the WWE in general, need new faces (in the sense of new talent and in the sense of new babyfaces). Sheamus was a lost cause earlier this year until he turned face and it has gotten him over. However, he cannot carry the brand yet with Orton and Henry (even Show) there. Hell, all he's doing right now is beating up jobbers but that is understandable since the Rumble is drawing near.

Christian has been fucked with already to the point where he is non-existent. Also, people won't buy a Christian face turn unless it makes sense and is something the fans get behind with. Even then, I believe Christian's time as a legit main eventer is pretty much done. He's there to put over talent.

Del Rio should have never left from Smackdown, thus while he is dwindling ever since RAW (even as a World champion). A move to Smackdown back would help him but maybe not necessarily the brand. Barrett is just now getting some heat but not enough to be warranted as a top heel right now.

And again, the ratings now don't mean what they were 10-15 years ago. A new way of media is now taking over not just WWE but everything else in general. We're in a digital world where, unfortunately, some WWE management and some fans still have an analog mentality.


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

TheF1BOB said:


> It doesn't help when your WWE Champion is acting like the GOD of the Indies now does it. Seriously, you think he came up with the concept, acts like he's the only one whos been there, done it. There's good reason to hate Punk beside beeing entertaining or not.
> The guys an ass, period.


^ this guy knows what his talking about


----------



## BTNH (Nov 27, 2011)

Blame the atrocious booking.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

I love how John Cena is on the backburner for one episode, the ratings go down a little bit and then all of a sudden it's the end of the world on here. Calm down folks.


----------



## BrahmaBuII (Nov 27, 2011)

Not surprising...

The WWE need a REAL superstar to be the face of the show. CM Punk is not a real superstar, he is just a wrestler that appeals to smarks, how is that suppose to draw?

Look at Hogan, Rock and Austin, what do they all have in common? They appealed to a mainstream audience... Thats why people were interested in them, and thats why they draw.

CM Punk is just a nerd trying to appeal to all the smarks. 90% of his promos are specifically for smarks and people that know inside information on the wrestling business. Why should a casual person who doesn't understand the wrestling business care about CM Punk? Why should any of the kids in the crowd care about CM Punk? How is the average wrestling fan going to connect with Punk? They can't, and thats why he is a failure.


----------



## Azuran (Feb 17, 2009)

Cole Phelps said:


> ^ this guy knows what his talking about


Well its a well known fact that Punk is a complete asshole outside the ring. There's a reason why you never see him doing promotional work or appearing in late night talk shows. One of the many reasons why Punk will never be the face of the company.


----------



## WWE (Jul 16, 2011)

And you all are going to have to live with it!


----------



## the fox (Apr 7, 2011)

the strange thing punk was doing fine when he wasn't the champion before servivour series
i was going through the rating threads and all his segement + matches did much better rating than now


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> BTW, since Punk won the title, RAW is below 3.0 every week.


Again,
you blame Punk and not the booking
But when rock loses viewers during his birthday episode and the Survivor Series buyrate is only 160k domestic you blame booking and not the Rock.
Inconsistency is not a good thing


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

Screw comparing Punk to The Rock. At this point, can we even compare him to Alberto Del Rio?


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

You guys are hilarious!


----------



## MRRSNTNO (Feb 19, 2009)

They should have protected Mark Henry better. If he wasn't so badly injured, he'd still be World Champion, and the ratings would be ever-growing.

Also, fuck off with that nonsense. CM Punk will walk in and out of WrestleMania, WWE Champion.


----------



## Mr Premium (Nov 15, 2011)

BrahmaBuII said:


> Not surprising...
> 
> The WWE need a REAL superstar to be the face of the show. CM Punk is not a real superstar, he is just a wrestler that appeals to smarks, how is that suppose to draw?
> 
> ...


This. Sadly there's no such thing as a sane CM Punk mark/fan at the moment and won't realise how much of a failure he has been.


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

Maybe they should consider not jobbing people out 5 PPVs in a row before giving them the belt.


----------



## Obfuscation (Apr 15, 2006)

One story breaks and all of a sudden CM Punk sucks.

Too funny. Nobody unless it is Cena will "help the ratings". Not even sure he'll do too much anymore.


----------



## Venge™ (Aug 30, 2007)

The story here is all the Punk marks jumping to his defense, like a pack of rabid soccer moms.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Punk has been ANYTHING but a failure.


----------



## wwffans123 (Feb 13, 2009)

lol at some people suck cm punks dick.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> I understand you weren't paying attention with the Rock hype and all. Sensible. That said, yes it has been planted for months with the way they are building Cena's character to be. From the Rock's return this year to the Summer of Punk to the noticeable crowd reactions lately of Cena's character.
> 
> As a matter of fact, Kane could be seen as helping Cena rather than hurting him with this feud if you really pay attention.
> 
> ...



How is it hard to carry smack down. All he has to do is keep it the current norm. Orton has not magically maintained smack down. The attendance have been real low this year. I'm a christian mark but i know christian role in the company and its not to carry a brand. So its funny that Orton who is expected to be the top guy gets outdrawn by christian in ratings and even more embarrassing by a guy that has not been relevant since smack down 2006. Its not that big of deal to have sheamus carry smack down. Edge was a heel for most of his smack down tenure. Rey mysterio was really the guy carrying the show when Batista and taker weren't around.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

Read the rules, no more Rock/Punk shit. 

BTW, something funny, especially now after the Shaq/Show, who gets the main time slots? Rock/Cena main event, HHH/Taker opening segment or top of the hour, and you got big attraction with Shaq, so Punk is going to lose viewers every week, his match would be 4-5, and you still got the Orton(Rumble winner)match lol.



BrahmaBuII said:


> Not surprising...
> 
> The WWE need a REAL superstar to be the face of the show. CM Punk is not a real superstar, he is just a wrestler that appeals to smarks, how is that suppose to draw?
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

What I see in this thread:

A bunch of people in the IWC complaining about the product.

In other words: The same thing we have seen year in, year out, ever since the Attitude Era.


----------



## SpeedStick (Feb 11, 2010)

Every great babyface needs a great heel CM Punk doesn't have that right now, Cena and HHH must turn heel


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

HAYLEY AFICIONADO said:


> One story breaks and all of a sudden CM Punk sucks.
> 
> Too funny. Nobody unless it is Cena will "help the ratings". Not even sure he'll do too much anymore.


you're sig is everything wrong with wrestling fpalm


----------



## Azuran (Feb 17, 2009)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> Punk has been ANYTHING but a failure.


Okay, you gotta stop living in your fantasy world. Last time I checked, no one considers low ratings and buy rates, terrible PPV matches, and driving away viewers as a success.


----------



## DFUSCMAN (Mar 13, 2010)

ugh rock trolls.....


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Azuran said:


> Okay, you gotta stop living in your fantasy world. Last time I checked, no one considers low ratings and buy rates, terrible PPV matches, and driving away viewers as a success.


I'm not here to get my opinions validated by you. Because you have no credibility in my eyes.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

SpeedStick said:


> Every great babyface needs a great heel CM Punk doesn't have that right now, Cena and HHH must turn heel


What if they don't though kane is available but if they have other plans. Jericho is great star but a heel Orton would do more wonders for punk.


----------



## Obfuscation (Apr 15, 2006)

Cole Phelps said:


> you're sig is everything wrong with wrestling fpalm


I laughed.


----------



## jonoaries (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, it was nice while it lasted Punk. Its strange that the live audiences love Punk, but the TV audience doesn't seem to...I wonder what's going on. I'm sure the E thinks the problem is the decrease in Cena means decreasing ratings. If Punk isn't drawing then the E needs to take this as any good sports team would. Using American football as an example: when you have a new quarterback you will lose. You may even lose games you should win but at the end of the day that QB is getting experience and the audience is getting experience in seeing him perform and slowly but surely they will become attached. The E NEEDS to make new stars, so they NEED to leave the title on Punk but I can believe they will not. I bet Cena is smiling.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

DFUSCMAN said:


> Boy i wonder why they are not draws......because they have not been built as draws.
> 
> God it takes time for somebody to become a draw. And hotshotting a title because of ratings is a reason why wcw failed.
> 
> ...


I agree with this. People don't become draws overnight. Punk is on his way though.


----------



## DFUSCMAN (Mar 13, 2010)

jonoaries said:


> Well, it was nice while it lasted Punk. Its strange that the live audiences love Punk, but the TV audience doesn't seem to...I wonder what's going on. I'm sure the E thinks the problem is the decrease in Cena means decreasing ratings. If Punk isn't drawing then the E needs to take this as any good sports team would. Using American football as an example: when you have a new quarterback you will lose. You may even lose games you should win but at the end of the day that QB is getting experience and the audience is getting experience in seeing him perform and slowly but surely they will become attached.* The E NEEDS to make new stars, so they NEED to leave the title on Punk but I can believe that will not. I bet Cena is smiling.*


Exactly QFT


----------



## BTNH (Nov 27, 2011)

SpeedStick said:


> Every great babyface needs a great heel CM Punk doesn't have that right now, Cena and HHH must turn heel


In the short term HHH going heel will be great. In the long term horrible. They can't keep relying on old talent. They desperately need young stars to be pushed. WWE has fully changed now. There was once a time where Angle, Benoit, Guerrero, Taker, HBK, Lesnar, Batista, HHH, Flair etc.. were all in the same product! That is only part of a whole army of crazy talent! Now things have moved on so quickly. WWE only have themselves to blame. Pushing Cena like God was a horrific decision. If they were pushing newer stars around 06, 07, 08 things woulnd't be half as bad going into 2012. They could afford to push new guys while still having major players in the company. However WWE are just clueless it seems.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

DFUSCMAN said:


> *wwe is going through it's transition period* so we are experiencing a lull in the ratings and wwe are actually being creative for once.


Yeah, I've been hearing this for almost six years now.


----------



## Sin_Bias (Aug 9, 2011)

It's amazing how much those 300k or so fair-weather fans affect booking. They need to appeal to their core like they did in the days where WWE didn't suck so hard. This "appeal to the people who tune in to see 1 person" tactic has already cost them.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Theproof said:


> Yeah, I've been hearing this for almost six years now.


This time I feel it is true.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

DFUSCMAN said:


> Austin when he first won the title drew horribly, but the wwe stuck with austin and guess what he became the star of the attitude era and helped usher in the boom period of wrestling.



:lmao @ this guy, not only knows nothing about the wrestling business, but compares his little indy darling to Austin and his huge title run in 98 which drew amazing numbers in every aspect of the business, that's your typical Punk fanboy BTW.


----------



## Obfuscation (Apr 15, 2006)

CM Punk is clearly over with the fans. But it isn't like he's gonna magically make the ratings improve instantly. I don't know why people are quick to jump the gun. It's one thing to not be a fan, but to claim this isn't working and it's all his fault is just...off. He's only been champ for one month. When it builds more traction then we'll see what happens. These new champ transitions are always gonna see a slight dip with fans because it's something different. Jericho being champ over guys like Austin & Rock is a good example. That's like where Punk is now being a champ over Cena or Orton. Or even Triple H seeing how he could work more often if he chose to.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

kokepepsi said:


> Again,
> you blame Punk and not the booking
> But when rock loses viewers during his birthday episode and the Survivor Series buyrate is only 160k domestic you blame booking and not the Rock.
> Inconsistency is not a good thing


What you smoking. 

Survivor Series was able to draw 322,000 PPV buys. The event drew almost 80,000 more buys from the previous year. 

MITB drew 185,000 buys, which is barely up from 165,000 buys the previous year.

Rock IS the draw. 

Punk... :lmao


----------



## DFUSCMAN (Mar 13, 2010)

Theproof said:


> Yeah, I've been hearing this for almost six years now.


The cena era wasn't a transition period, this is because cena had a legit 2nd star in batista who they built incredibly as well. Plus they also had proven attitude era draws in hhh, michaels, and taker to feud with. Plus the wwe made orton and edge into stars, through great slow booking

All the top heels of the cena batista years are gone.

The wwe is at a point where they are being forced to make new stars, main event babyfaces and heels.

We are in a transition period


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

HAYLEY AFICIONADO said:


> One story breaks and all of a sudden CM Punk sucks.
> 
> Too funny. Nobody unless it is Cena will "help the ratings". Not even sure he'll do too much anymore.


It seems that logical arguments don't apply in those said threads.

Of course the ratings will fluctuate if it's during a transitional period. But eh, let them think otherwise.



Christiangotcrewed said:


> How is it hard to carry smack down. All he has to do is keep it the current norm. Orton has not magically maintained smack down. The attendance have been real low this year. I'm a christian mark but i know christian role in the company and its not to carry a brand. So its funny that Orton who is expected to be the top guy gets outdrawn by christian in ratings and even more embarrassing by a guy that has not been relevant since smack down 2006.


Again, I never even mentioned ratings. If Orton leaves Smackdown, which he shouldn't since he is the centerpiece of that brand right now, who carries the brand? Who is a believable face (not deposition wise) to actually make the brand work? The answer is nobody.



> Its not that big of deal to have sheamus carry smack down. Edge was a heel for most of his smack down tenure. Rey mysterio was really the guy carrying the show when Batista and taker weren't around.


Because Edge had people like Mysterio, Batista, Taker, etc. to be able to be drafted to RAW and not worry that the brand would be without a centerpiece. Orton can't afford to do that and that's why he's building said talent to do so so he can be able to within a year's time. After about a year, you can ask the same question and get a better decision towards that.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

TheF1BOB said:


> What you smoking.


He's smoking the same thing CM Punk is smoking. Straight out of the delusion pipe.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

HAYLEY AFICIONADO said:


> CM Punk is clearly over with the fans. But it isn't like he's gonna magically make the ratings improve instantly. I don't know why people are quick to jump the gun. It's one thing to not be a fan, but to claim this isn't working and it's all his fault is just...off. He's only been champ for one month. When it builds more traction then we'll see what happens. These new champ transitions are always gonna see a slight dip with fans because it's something different. Jericho being champ over guys like Austin & Rock is a good example. That's like where Punk is now being a champ over Cena or Orton. Or even Triple H seeing how he could work more often if he chose to.


Thank You! I wish more people would see it this way. It takes time.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> :lmao @ this guy, not only knows nothing about the wrestling business, but compares his little indy darling to Austin and his huge title run in 98 which drew amazing numbers in every aspect of the business, that's your typical Punk fanboy BTW.


:lmao These punk marks

These Orton marks too. They will say Orton draws more chasing the belt. Then why did they cut kanes reign and kept putting the belt back on Austin and rock later on.


----------



## Obfuscation (Apr 15, 2006)

Winning™ said:


> It seems that logical arguments don't apply in those said threads.
> 
> Of course the ratings will fluctuate if it's during a transitional period. But eh, let them think otherwise.


Exactly. I'm not gonna argue with someone if they don't want to be sensible.



BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> Thank You! I wish more people would see it this way. It takes time.


I'm just calling it like it is. Doesn't bug me if people don't like Punk. Enjoy who you want. It's as if they think Punk fans expected him to make the ratings go through the roof or something. I love the guy, but I'm not that blind and naive. It's gonna take some time for him to establish. As it does for anyone.


----------



## Wrestling Eltie (Sep 20, 2011)

Burger Flipper said:


> :lmao WWE are so fucked after WM 28.




Agreed


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

HAYLEY AFICIONADO said:


> Exactly. I'm not gonna argue with someone if they don't want to be sensible.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just calling it like it is. Doesn't bug me if people don't like Punk. Enjoy who you want. It's as if they think Punk fans expected him to make the ratings go through the roof or something. I love the guy, but I'm not that blind and naive. It's gonna take some time for him to establish. As it does for anyone.


And I think Punk is a star in his own right and is on his way. He has established a lot recently. Just needs to keep going.


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

Theproof said:


> He's smoking the same thing CM Punk is smoking. Straight out of the delusion pipe.


excately ! i get that his marks are mindless zombies. But come on even cm punk he doesnt believe half the shit he says


----------



## DFUSCMAN (Mar 13, 2010)

NM


----------



## Romanista (Jul 13, 2011)

I'M THE BEST IN THE WORLDDDDD!!!! (which world?)


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782203 said:


> It seems that logical arguments don't apply in those said threads.
> 
> Of course the ratings will fluctuate if it's during a transitional period. But eh, let them think otherwise.
> 
> ...




You kept saying that edge was the face of the show and know you say he had people to back him up. So does sheamus. He has Henry who is still over despite losing steam and christian that can be good face, not to mention Del Rio who would probably have more success on smack down right know. Also Barret when he wins money in the bank he can enter the main event scene as well. Sheamus can have a supporting cast as well. Not to mention they break the bran barrier all the time now. So they could always send someone over if things go bad. Though it probably wont be bad if the ratings can be at least a 1.7 there and everything else stays norm.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

TheF1BOB said:


> What you smoking.
> 
> Survivor Series was able to draw 322,000 PPV buys. The event drew almost 80,000 more buys from the previous year.
> 
> MITB drew 185,000 buys, which was up from 165,000 buys the previous year.


http://bit.ly/tbQzSJ
[Q4:322 total buys AVG: 151 for two shows Vengeance/HIAC]
http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/LookAndFeel/4121687/WWE-keyperformance.pdf
[Q4 632 total buys AVG: 194 for 3 shows Vengeance/HIC/SS]
Do the math.
280k total
160k dom
120k int


----------



## Amber B (Dec 9, 2007)

I can easily see Punk dropping that title before Mania and quite possibly at Elimination Chamber and it landing in the hands of Cena and Cena/Rock main eventing Mania with the title on the line. (Cena will obviously retain). _If_ (a big if) Jericho returns to face Punk, it will be a grudge match, not a title match. This is WWE's most important season, they are not going to do experiments with unproven champions at the top of the card.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

What's the point of even starting these threads if they all end up going in the same direction?


----------



## Obfuscation (Apr 15, 2006)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> And I think Punk is a star in his own right and is on his way. He has established a lot recently. Just needs to keep going.


Sure sure. I think he can stay established. Unless something baffling happens with the booking, he'll probably succeed. I still don't see why so many people care about ratings and draws and all this stuff now. I just watch wrestling because it's the best and I love it. I'm enjoying what I see right now and that works for me. Wouldn't object to having the Attitude Era levels of success back though. Of course I wouldn't.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Amber B said:


> I can easily see Punk dropping that title before Mania and quite possibly at Elimination Chamber and it landing in the hands of Cena and Cena/Rock main eventing Mania with the title on the line. (Cena will obviously retain). _If_ (a big if) Jericho returns to face Punk, it will be a grudge match, not a title match. This is WWE's most important season, they are not going to do experiments with unproven champions at the top of the card.


There would be no point in having Rock/Cena for the title. Because WWE could afford to have somebody else as champ and make a name for themself. 

Even if it was with The Rock and John Cena, The Miz was an unproven champion at Wrestlemania 27. I would say Punk is proving himself as we speak.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> You kept saying that edge was the face of the show and know you say he had people to back him up. So does sheamus. He has Henry who is still over despite losing steam and christian that can be good face, not to mention Del Rio who would probably have more success on smack down right know. Also Barret when he wins money in the bank he can enter the main event scene as well. Sheamus can have a supporting cast as well.


Sheamus has no strong supporting cast right now if he were to be the top guy of the brand. That is exactly why Orton is not in the title picture and is working with guys like Rhodes and Barrett. So a guy like Sheamus, if Orton left, can have a supporting cast to help him carry the brand.

Again, another integral part as to why Orton is greatly needed on Smackdown rather than a pointless heel turn (ala Christian) and a pointless draft result to RAW (ala Del Rio).

Again, we're going off topic here. If Punk wasn't going to be champion as of now, they would have given the belt to Del Rio again or have never given Punk the title at SS. Ditto with Ryder and Bryan. Show could have easily been WHC heading to Mania.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

HAYLEY AFICIONADO said:


> Sure sure. I think he can stay established. Unless something baffling happens with the booking, he'll probably succeed. I still don't see why so many people care about ratings and draws and all this stuff now. I just watch wrestling because it's the best and I love it. I'm enjoying what I see right now and that works for me. Wouldn't object to having the Attitude Era levels of success back though. Of course I wouldn't.


I also don't care about ratings and draws. Because what might not be entertaining to others, might be to me. I absolutely love what I am seeing. Ratings could be at an all time low and I might still like what I am seeing.


----------



## Leechmaster (Jan 25, 2009)

Amber B said:


> I can easily see Punk dropping that title before Mania and quite possibly at Elimination Chamber and it landing in the hands of Cena and Cena/Rock main eventing Mania with the title on the line. (Cena will obviously retain). _If_ (a big if) Jericho returns to face Punk, it will be a grudge match, not a title match. This is WWE's most important season, they are not going to do experiments with unproven champions at the top of the card.


If they consider Punk, a 5-time world champion and and a man who has been on fire since July (both in terms of actually getting non-wrestling fans to care about the WWE again and killing it in merch sales) "unproven" and "an experiment", then the powers that be are as delusional and vacuous as you are.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Amber B said:


> *I can easily see Punk dropping that title before Mania and quite possibly at Elimination Chamber and it landing in the hands of Cena and Cena/Rock main eventing Mania with the title on the line. *(Cena will obviously retain). _If_ (a big if) Jericho returns to face Punk, it will be a grudge match, not a title match. This is WWE's most important season, they are not going to do experiments with unproven champions at the top of the card.




I can imagine punks expression if that happens.:lmao

He probably sign a good long term contract to so now trying to pike bomb and make threats.


----------



## jonoaries (Mar 7, 2011)

Ninja Punk said:


> lol Why do you talk as if Punk just debutted in the E? WTF happened to his main event feuds with taker,edge,jeff hardy on smackdown? what about his Wrestlemania feud with randy Orton? What about the feuds with cena & HHH this year? 4 time World champion, 2 time MITB winner....
> 
> 
> If All of this doesnt help him connect with the right fans, i dont see how else is he going do it.
> ...


He wasn't pushed as being the biggest star, Cena was. Batista was also. Using my example he was a guy on the bench who you never thought would be the starter and people don't know how to take it yet. Also take into account the weakness of the current heels and the poor booking and you have a recipe for disaster. Live audiences still go nuts for him, it just hasn't transferred into buys or ratings yet. It will though. There's no Undertaker or Jeff Hardy now, all he's got is Miz & Berto, shit Cena couldn't even make it work with those kind of guys.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Sheamus has no strong supporting cast right now if he were to be the top guy of the brand. That is exactly why Orton is not in the title picture and is working with guys like Rhodes and Barrett. So a guy like Sheamus, if Orton left, can have a supporting cast to help him carry the brand.
> 
> Again, another integral part as to why Orton is greatly needed on Smackdown rather than a pointless heel turn (ala Christian) and a pointless draft result to RAW (ala Del Rio).
> 
> Again, we're going off topic here. If Punk wasn't going to be champion as of now, they would have given the belt to Del Rio again or have never given Punk the title at SS. Ditto with Ryder and Bryan. Show could have easily been WHC heading to Mania.




Lol man saying again like your trying to educate me. Coming from the guy that says its been planned to have cena be heel, like he works there to know. There is no way to reason with you so lets just wait for the rumble so we can see who is right.


----------



## Amber B (Dec 9, 2007)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> There would be no point in having Rock/Cena for the title. Because WWE could afford to have somebody else as champ and make a name for themself.
> 
> Even if it was with The Rock and John Cena, The Miz was an unproven champion at Wrestlemania 27. I would say Punk is proving himself as we speak.


You think they give that much of a damn about that right now? Yes, the Miz was unproven but guess who he was in the main event against? John Cena. 

They are doing with Cena what they did with HHH years ago. Have him fuck around in a random feud that has nothing to do with the title and come February, he'll get the title back and go into Mania with it. This is absolutely nothing new. They will troll us for a few weeks and make you squeal and splooge over Punk/Bryan being champs and will take those straps off of them when it truly matters.


----------



## Obfuscation (Apr 15, 2006)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> I also don't care about ratings and draws. Because what might not be entertaining to others, might be to me. I absolutely love what I am seeing. Ratings could be at an all time low and I might still like what I am seeing.


Yep. And it's not only because all of a sudden "MY FAVORITES ARE THE FOCUS" but because I'm just honestly entertained right now. Isn't that the goal of WWE? To have their fans be entertained. I am. I alone might not be able to help the company grow, but my support can do nothing but help.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Lol man saying again like your trying to educate me. Coming from the guy that says its been planned to have cena be heel, like he works there to know. There is no way to reason with you so lets just wait for the rumble so we can see who is right.


What are you on about?

And yes, recent shows have been giving subtle hints as to Cena turning heel. If you've been paying attention, of course. Unless any booking retardation settles in, he's turning and for good reason.

I'm not here to "beat" you, or bet you, or even prove you right/wrong. I'm here to provide some common sense. Try it.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Amber B said:


> I can easily see Punk dropping that title before Mania and quite possibly at Elimination Chamber and it landing in the hands of Cena and Cena/Rock main eventing Mania with the title on the line. (Cena will obviously retain). _If_ (a big if) Jericho returns to face Punk, it will be a grudge match, not a title match. This is WWE's most important season, they are not going to do experiments with unproven champions at the top of the card.


I do too. It already happened with Del Rio, despite the ramifications. 
Predictions:
-Cena wins the title at Royal Rumble against CM Punk, gets one last run as a babyface (maybe?) and beating the Rock to retain the title and hopefully turning heel in the process. 
-Randy Orton wins the Rumble and regains the World Heavyweight title at wrestlemania
-Zack Ryder is safe in the midcard as the US champion; Dolph isn't exactly a better draw

Vince will preach that WWE has strayed from their top 2 stars for too long, I think they're gonna panic about the ratings and someone is gonna have a screaming match about putting Orton and Cena back in the focal point.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

Cycloneon said:


> And you all are going to have to live with it!


SAVE_US. JohnCena.


----------



## Mr Premium (Nov 15, 2011)

DFUSCMAN said:


> Boy i wonder why they are not draws......because they have not been built as draws.
> 
> God it takes time for somebody to become a draw. And hotshotting a title because of ratings is a reason why wcw failed.
> 
> ...


fpalm....

5/18/98 5.4
5/11/98 4.75
5/4/98 5.5
4/27/98 5.71
4/20/98 4.4
4/13/98 4.6
4/6/98 4.4
3/30/98 3.8
*3/29/98 - Austin wins the title at WM 14*
3/23/98 3.6
3/16/98 Tuesday Night 4.4
3/9/98 3.55
3/2/98 3.8
2/23/98 3.2

Meanwhile, since Punk won the title at SS.......

11/21/11 3.2
11/28/11 3.2
12/5/11 2.96.....fpalm
12/12/11 2.84.....fpalm fpalm
12/19/11 2.9......fpalm fpalm fpalm


----------



## jonoaries (Mar 7, 2011)

Punk is super over, he just needs a program to sink his teeth into. Get these milquetoast heels OUT. Do Punk a big favor he needs a clean win over a HUGE name. Cena had Angle & H job clean for him to solidify him as the top guy. Punk doesn't have those quality guys waiting right now. Maybe Kane will be that guy or HHH in any event he needs a bigger feud than Miz, Ziggler or Berto can bring right now, especially with 'Mania round the corner.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782295 said:


> What are you on about?
> 
> A*nd yes, recent shows have been giving subtle hints as to Cena turning heel.* If you've been paying attention, of course. Unless any booking retardation settles in, he's turning and for good reason.
> 
> I'm not here to "beat" you, or bet you, or even prove you right/wrong. I'm here to provide some common sense. Try it.


This has happened in the past as well does not mean a thing really till it happens. Lol I am using common sense rather than continue bickering i rather wait for the rumble to see who is right rather than talking like what i say is completely right.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

kokepepsi said:


> http://bit.ly/tbQzSJ
> [Q4:322 total buys AVG: 151 for two shows Vengeance/HIAC]
> http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/LookAndFeel/4121687/WWE-keyperformance.pdf
> [Q4 632 total buys AVG: 194 for 3 shows Vengeance/HIC/SS]
> ...


I'm sorry mate but WTF??? You do realise they are the quatars for all of the PPVs in that period, all of them with out the sepcific number of buys to back your math. Averaging??? seriously, that's desperate man, plus that only includes North America only, not Worlwide. fpalm.

There's a graph on corporate pdf you gave me to back my numbers. Not hating man, don't get how you got your math lol.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> This has happened in the past as well does not mean a thing really till it happens. Lol I am using common sense rather than continue bickering i rather wait for the rumble to see who is right rather than talking like what i say is completely right.





> Unless any booking retardation settles in, he's turning and for good reason.


But sure, we'll go with that. Even though it's a wrestling forum


----------



## Amber B (Dec 9, 2007)

Leechmaster said:


> If they consider Punk, a 5-time world champion and and a man who has been on fire since July (both in terms of actually getting non-wrestling fans to care about the WWE again and killing it in merch sales) "unproven" and "an experiment", then the powers that be are as delusional and vacuous as you are.


Eh delusional and vacuous would be me thinking that Punk will legitimately become the face of the company with Cena still alive and kicking and far from being past his prime.

It's fairly easy to become a 5 time world champion in this era. And look at how the WWE handled him 6 months ago with HHH. Why do you think Cena was off the last pay per view and had only one segment this week? They are testing to see if there is a great difference between Cena being on a show and Cena being off a show. The lower the ratings go, the closer their fingers will push on that panic button.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

TheF1BOB said:


> I'm sorry mate but WTF??? You do realise they are the quatars for all of the PPVs in that period, all of them with out the sepcific number of buys to back your math. Averaging??? seriously, that's desperate man, plus that only includes North America only, not Worlwide. fpalm.
> 
> There's a graph on corporate pdf you gave me to back my numbers. Not hating man, don't get how you got your math lol.


Not doing this in this thread go the the proper one.


----------



## Fabregas (Jan 15, 2007)

DFUSCMAN said:


> Austin when he first won the title drew horribly


----------



## Coffey (Dec 18, 2011)

The problem isn't C.M. Punk. The problem is everyone else around him. No one cares about Daniel Bryan, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio or (dare I say it, I know it's blasphemy on-line) Zack Ryder. Plus Michael Cole has to be turning people off in droves.

You want people to care about Punk as champion? Put him in there with established people, not shit like Miz that everyone already looks at like a jobber.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS (Jun 5, 2010)

Umm look who he is working with, Miz and Del Rio, damn, WWE must think the dude is Austin or something. The Miz was working with people like Orton, Rock, and Cena, and HHH.


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Unless you're putting it on The Rock, it makes no difference who has the belt. Changing the champion without fundamentally changing the product as a whole has no impact whatsoever on ratings.

Perhaps one step WWE should consider taking is to have their lead play-by-play man stop spending the entire show burying all the talent.


----------



## planetarydeadlock (Aug 3, 2010)

Will these ratings obsessives just FUCK OFF?


----------



## jonoaries (Mar 7, 2011)

Amber B said:


> Eh delusional and vacuous would be me thinking that Punk will legitimately become the face of the company with Cena still alive and kicking and far from being past his prime.
> 
> It's fairly easy to become a 5 time world champion in this era. And look at how the WWE handled him 6 months ago with HHH. Why do you think Cena was off the last pay per view and had only one segment this week? They are testing to see if there is a great difference between Cena being on a show and Cena being off a show. The lower the ratings go, the closer their fingers will push on that panic button.


That's very true. They have to resist that urge though because they have already stunted Punk's growth already with that Berto, Nash, HHH stuff months ago.


----------



## Kamaria (Jun 10, 2009)

Can someone post the full quarter-hours? Maybe this was a downward trend throughout the show and not just a sudden turn off just because Punk was in the main event. 

Also it makes no sense for Punk to be topping merchandise sales but drawing bad ratings. There has to be more to this report.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Walk-In said:


> The problem isn't C.M. Punk. The problem is everyone else around him. No one cares about Daniel Bryan, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio or (dare I say it, I know it's blasphemy on-line) Zack Ryder. Plus Michael Cole has to be turning people off in droves.
> 
> You want people to care about Punk as champion? Put him in there with established people, not shit like Miz that everyone already looks at like a jobber.


Miz isn't the problem. Miz vs Cena (with help from the Rock) was able to draw a big number for Wrestlemania, and the subsequent PPVs such as Over the Limit and Extreme Rules and Raw television shows had much better numbers.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Kamaria said:


> Can someone post the full quarter-hours? Maybe this was a downward trend throughout the show and not just a sudden turn off just because Punk was in the main event.
> 
> Also it makes no sense for Punk to be topping merchandise sales but drawing bad ratings. There has to be more to this report.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggoZnMiHmtQ


----------



## Amber B (Dec 9, 2007)

Kamaria said:


> Can someone post the full quarter-hours? Maybe this was a downward trend throughout the show and not just a sudden turn off just because Punk was in the main event.
> 
> *Also it makes no sense for Punk to be topping merchandise sales but drawing bad ratings. There has to be more to this report.*


Jeff Hardy says what's up. He was never a ratings savior either but his strong point was in merchandise. They took that title off of him before Mania and gave it to Edge, one of their Mania main event favorites. WWE does not like to experiment much with new and cool things when Mania is around the corner. Fuck the t shirts.


----------



## 1TheRockHHH (Jul 24, 2011)

i don't give a fuck about ratings or cm punk. All i want is some good tv unfortuanately wwe will never give it to me


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

Mr Premium said:


> fpalm....
> 
> 5/18/98 5.4
> 5/11/98 4.75
> ...


A lot of people talking out of the ass in this thread. Specifically delusional Punk super marks that don't want to believe this bit of news.


----------



## Amber B (Dec 9, 2007)

Ninja Punk said:


> How can you say HHH stunted Punk's growth? Without the COO character, Punk's entire shoot would have been meaningless. Feuding for the wwe title with cena doesnt make him a rebel.


It stunted it...it definitely stunted it. It was a random feud with Punk being an anti establishment nuisance and HHH being too much of a familiar fan favorite to even be hated on. During that time, Punk became the antagonist and not in a good way, he got punked out in their pay per view match and Punk subsequently recanted all of the things that he said about HHH prior. The "feud" basically ended with a "My bad. My fault. Let's be friends now." That was another obvious sign of WWE not being quite sure of where to go with his character. (See Taker/Punk as well)


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

The HHH storyline did hamper his momentum, especially since it was rushed that way since I believe Nash was to have faced Punk at some point. Afterwards, he was being the third wheel of the Cena/Del Rio WWE title feud. He just started to gain his momentum back since Survivor Series and I still believe if WWE didn't want Punk to go to Mania with the belt that he wouldn't have been given it at Survivor Series.

Granted, he was still over during the period but as of now, they can't afford to hamper his momentum again on the Road to Wrestlemania.


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler (Jun 28, 2011)

Ratings are 100% important from a company standpoint, *however* RAW was the 3rd most popular show behind Monday Night Football and Pawn Stars. In what world will people not want to advertise during the THIRD most popular TV weekly on a Monday night? I'd be incredibly shocked if these ratings put off investors to such an extent that it would seriously hinder the financial future of the WWE.

Is a ratings dip concerning? Yes. But they need to look at the wider picture instead of making knee jerk descisions which ironically are part of the reason there has been ratings dips. They need to let Punk run with the belt for a few months to gauge his total affect on ratings, hot shotting the belt around causes for confusion and disilliusionment with the prodcut which in itself turns viewers away, simply giving the belt to Cena is NOT a responsible solution nor is having the title holder drop it within weeks of capturing it.

WWE needs to invest in long term storylines which make you want to come back and watch the following week, they need to get behind their descisions because quick re-hashes put people off. They need a long term plan, short term panics do not aid the overall product and will only result in more ratings losses and it won't be the new breed of wrestlers fault when they've been given less chances to grow as performers into a stature that can adequately replace the Cena's of the business.

Anybody who blames Punk specifically is an asbolute idiot, a troll or really, REALLY, hates him. Usually all three.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Amber B said:


> It stunted it...it definitely stunted it. It was a random feud with Punk being an anti establishment nuisance and HHH being too much of a familiar fan favorite to even be hated on. During that time, Punk became the antagonist and not in a good way, he got punked out in their pay per view match and Punk subsequently recanted all of the things that he said about HHH prior. The "feud" basically ended with a "My bad. My fault. Let's be friends now." That was another obvious sign of WWE not being quite sure of where to go with his character. (See Taker/Punk as well)


I think it was smart to have hhh involved. The only thing i would have change was punk going over at night of champions. I don't care that it took three pedigrees to take punk out the guy there trying to push should of gotten the win over the guy that barely wrestles. That is like if cena would of done a job to hogan back in 05. Obviously you need to push the guy that is gonna be the future.


----------



## wwffans123 (Feb 13, 2009)

if wwe want the rating.masked kane should be new champion now


----------



## ChrisMax (Dec 21, 2011)

Yet another great episode of smark wars. Can't wait till the episode after mania I hear its gonna be called *"The Rage of the Rock smarks"*


----------



## L-U-D (Jun 26, 2007)

Walk-In said:


> The problem isn't C.M. Punk. The problem is everyone else around him.


:lmao



Amber B said:


> It stunted it...it definitely stunted it. It was a random feud with Punk being an anti establishment nuisance and HHH being too much of a familiar fan favorite to even be hated on. During that time, Punk became the antagonist and not in a good way, he got punked out in their pay per view match and Punk subsequently recanted all of the things that he said about HHH prior. The "feud" basically ended with a "My bad. My fault. Let's be friends now." That was another obvious sign of WWE not being quite sure of where to go with his character. (See Taker/Punk as well)


This. The Punk character was totally diluted by the end of that fued. He should have gone on to beat Nash, but HHH stole the hottest angle in ages from him, and put him on the sidelines in a program with Del Frio. It's deliberate sabotage, probably because Punk the man is a giant douchebag, and nobody wants to lose to him.


----------



## Sin_Bias (Aug 9, 2011)

It would be great if they started pinning the blame on the writing staff instead of looking at ONE person to save the entire 2 hour show. 

It would also be great if they stopped trying to reach out to the members of the audience who don't even like the product and only want to see one person in particular. Build from the ground up and let the fans come to you.


----------



## Romanista (Jul 13, 2011)

It will be sad.... WWE trying to CHANGE now, but with this terrible result, they may lose all the gut to try it in near future. #CenaIsRating for another 2 decades.


----------



## Mr White (May 25, 2011)

"Ratings don't matter," Ok, then why not televise Raw Mondays at 2:30 in the
afternoon? They would lose half their audience but hey, who cares about
the ratings right? 

LOL @ the people who thought this was the second coming of Steve Austin.

CM Punk=Ratings.........for the competition


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler (Jun 28, 2011)

Thing is, they can still use Cena, hellthey could be having him losing matches slowly to "up and comers" by minor slip ups, that become bigger slip ups and really play on the "crowd and pressure getting to him" angle whilst helping put some other guys over. He doesn't need to have the title thrown on him for a very small ratings boost.


----------



## ArmyOfLove (Nov 30, 2011)

The majority of the viewers want to see Cena. Cena has not been around on TV much. Think about it. The less he's on TV, the less ratings they get.


----------



## Romanista (Jul 13, 2011)

for people who think WWE doesn't care about rating...

wrong! they're producing serie of TV programs, why the hell they don't care about TV rating? are you serious?


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

Mr White said:


> "Ratings don't matter," Ok, then why not televise Raw Mondays at 2:30 in the
> afternoon? They would lose half their audience but hey, who cares about
> the ratings right?
> 
> ...


true that btw lovin' the sig


----------



## deatawaits (Sep 25, 2011)

I will say this and then fuck off


> You know I won't defend punk as he has proven time and time again that he is not a ratings'draw.It is a well known fact but what these people(I am not addressing all of them)who call themselves rock fans are trying to do and how the so called punk marks are reacting is beyond pathetic.You know what if you think that vince Mcmahon expects Punk,bryan and ryder to draw then you are an idiot.They have proven in past they can't.What is happening is that the WWE is trying to make the casuals used to see new guys as champs or as the focal point of the show.Rock fans point out punk fans' double standards which is right to a limit.But the so called top guy John cena's matches have lost viewers thrice(perhaps i am wrong)this year and last raw his match with mark henry did just a 3.27 which was lower than both of punk's last Main events.The match which lost viewers at 10 pm slot also had orton the so called 2nd top face.what has happened that Cena and orton's drawing power now doesn't come into play when they aren't involved in a big feud.You want talk buyrates eh? Vengence had just about 70 thousand domestic buys.And it was headlined by None another than your top face John cena.The fact is 2011 has proven that the time of the old guards is up and because WWE hasn't build any stars they are suffering.The E is going through a transitional period when new stars will come to top and it will take time for casuals to swallow that.If there is any sanity left in Vince he understands it that better than anyone and won't panic
> 
> You guys blame punk.And you people are right he is the champ he should take the blame.But ask yourself is this guy supposed to draw?He first feuded with cena the biggest babyface in the biz and then feuded with triple h a mega face who was not even a heel and it was when he just became relevant to ME.And should I mention Kevin fucking Nash?and then he moved on to del rio who garners no heat whatsoever and always loses 800k during his matches when he is a champ.Don't tell me that you actually thought that feud even mattered.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Kane needs the belt.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

ChrisMax said:


> Yet another great episode of smark wars. Can't wait till the episode after mania I hear its gonna be called *":lmao*


 *The rage of the rock smarks*


:lmao

What about on extreme rules the cena menace.


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler (Jun 28, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Kane needs the belt.


No he doesn't. His monster character doesn't need a belt attached to it to be made to mean something.


----------



## Kratosx23 (Nov 1, 2004)

Amber B said:


> Jeff Hardy says what's up. He was never a ratings savior either but his strong point was in merchandise. They took that title off of him before Mania and gave it to Edge, one of their Mania main event favorites. WWE does not like to experiment much with new and cool things when Mania is around the corner. Fuck the t shirts.


Jeff Hardy also couldn't be trusted.

WWE doesn't really have any choice but to keep the title on Punk. Who else is it gonna be? Del Rio? Yeah, cause people REALLY give a fuck about him. He'll spike the ratings. Miz isn't a ratings draw, and they can't well put it on Cena with his feud with Rock around the corner because that feud is like Hogan vs Rock, it's a generational feud where the old guy puts over the current guy. Putting the title in that match dilutes it, plus it robs WrestleMania of an additional match that could've been for the WWE title and made the card stronger.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

If they're expecting some huge ratings boost in a matter of weeks then they might as well shut down the company because it's not happening.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Kane needs the belt.












If Vince is smart? Monday would be awesome.


----------



## ChrisMax (Dec 21, 2011)

Mark Henry CM Punk feud please


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Gillbergs Sparkler said:


> No he doesn't. His monster character doesn't need a belt attached to it to be made to mean something.


Why not? Might as well repair the damage that was that one day tittle reign.


----------



## Romanista (Jul 13, 2011)

I can't imagine Masked Kane holding that bullshit rapper accessory champion...

There's a reason why Undertaker never won that belt.


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler (Jun 28, 2011)

Interesting article about the USA Newtork here....

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...unprecedented-six-straight-years-as-1/113512/



> WWE continues to be a ratings juggernaut for USA, 52 weeks a year, on Monday nights. WWE MONDAY NIGHT RAW saw gains year over year in all key demos. In 2011, USA extended the WWE franchise with the new original reality series WWE TOUGH ENOUGH.
> 
> ■WWE MONDAY NIGHT RAW: 2.46 million in P25 -54 (+1% over 2010,) 2.52 million in P18-49 (+2% over 2010,) 1.23 million in P18-34 (+9% over 2010,) 5.21 million (+3% over 2010)
> ■WWE TOUGH ENOUGH: 1.35 million in P25-54, 1.33 million in P18-49, 652,000 in P18-34, 2.75 million


The article was dated December 12th 2011, not that long ago so it doesn't seem that the WWE is in anyway in a "dangerous" position ratings wise.


----------



## Kratosx23 (Nov 1, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Why not? Might as well repair the damage that was that one day tittle reign.


They gave him a long title reign and it was the worst one in the history of the business.


----------



## Chicago Warrior (Oct 18, 2010)

Rock316AE said:


> If Vince is smart? Monday would be awesome.


Yeah have CM Punk drop it in Chicago. Great move


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler (Jun 28, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Why not? Might as well repair the damage that was that one day tittle reign.


Because his character has absolutely no motivation to be the champion. A Kane hell bent on destuction isn't bound by whether he has that cheap tacky ghetto belt, he can still tear people apart whether he has it or not and as there is a more pressing need to build people for the future, giving the belt to a 4o-odd year old isn't prudent.

Kane is fine just destroying people, the belt would do him neither harm nor good. Infact if the WWE is so happy flip flopping with the title, in the interest of building him to have a monster run I'd avoid giving him an accessory that almost guarantees a defeat and an end to that run after a couple of average ratings.

As for his one day title reign, it sucked, I love Kane but that's not a reason togive him a belt that does nothing for him.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Who even says Kane is winning the belt on Monday? Who says that Kane and Cena won't have a match at the Rumble or the RAW before it?


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Tyrion Lannister said:


> They gave him a long title reign and it was the worst one in the history of the business.


Back when he was baldy and that was the world tittle, not the same thing. Not like he has to carry it forever he can loose it at mania.


----------



## Pop Tatari (May 27, 2011)

Chicago Warrior said:


> Yeah have CM Punk drop it in Chicago. Great move


----------



## Leechmaster (Jan 25, 2009)

Funny thing about ratings/buys discussions:

Fans here complain about buys being low, but those are the same people who have stopped buying PPVs and started streaming them in their basements.

Fans complain about ratings, but they have no idea how ratings are measures (you'd be surprised how flawed the methodology is) and they also stream/download shows.


----------



## Kratosx23 (Nov 1, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Back when he was baldy and that was the world tittle, not the same thing. Not like he has to carry it forever he can loose it at mania.


Not the same thing? It's a fucking world title push, and he blew it. BIG.

The fact that he even has fans after that title push is appaling, let alone ones that want him to fuck up the title picture again. It's enough to make a man gag. He doesn't need the WWE title again, it won't solve anything, and who would he lose it to? CM Punk, of course. Yeah, taking the title off him is really necessary.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

It's a booking problem not necessarily a Punk problem.

Punk should be feuding with a Triple H, a masked Kane instead he's going up against rivals with no appeal or drawing power as well. He's teaming with guys who appeal to the same base as he does and nobody else.

Luckily for Punk he's in Chicago this week and is going to be treated like a God. Strong booking hopefully will net him better ratings.


----------



## ric6y (Apr 21, 2007)

alliance said:


> CM Punk is plain BOOOOOOOOORING
> 
> as a wrestling fan i want to be Entertained for my efforts [efforts like sitting my ass on the couch] and punk is just a ONE TRICK PONY, and those are just the facts..
> 
> he's a complete botcher and his wrestling ability is past his best im afraid, his character is simply uninteresting and he really needs to step his game up, i used to be a punk fan but hes lost me completely and thats pretty sad


this he was 10 time better before this year i used to love him from the ecw time at 2006 but he isn't that boring as u say right now also he need to be more going in the ring and stop talkin so much about the rock and about being the leader of that era because we the fans the one should say that not the wrestler himself


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Leechmaster said:


> Funny thing about ratings/buys discussions:
> 
> Fans here complain about buys being low, but those are the same people who have stopped buying PPVs and started streaming them in their basements.
> 
> Fans complain about ratings, but they have no idea how ratings are measures (you'd be surprised how flawed the methodology is) and they also stream/download shows.


(Y)

Correct post is correct


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Back when he was baldy and that was the world tittle, not the same thing. Not like he has to carry it forever he can loose it at mania.


Just because he has his mask back doesn't make him any different. Hell, it hasn't even been explained why yet.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Tyrion Lannister said:


> *Not the same thing?* It's a fucking world title push, and he blew it. BIG.
> 
> The fact that he even has fans after that title push is appaling, let alone ones that want him to fuck up the title picture again. It's enough to make a man gag. He doesn't need the WWE title again, it won't solve anything, and who would he lose it to? CM Punk, of course. Yeah, taking the title off him is really necessary.



Yes do you not understand how stale the guy was on smack down. Also the world tittle that is reaching ecw tittle like status if not for orton reigns this year. The more important tittle is the raw tittle. Its just an idea because there would be no one else that this could work with besides hhh.


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler (Jun 28, 2011)

Like I said, Kane's character doesn't need to have a world title, if you can have a successful character that can be over without needing a belt then roll with it. Kane has no base character requirements for a title persuit. He just wants to hurt people and he can do it without a belt, in fact I think the fact his character has no explainable desire to hold a title OTHER than to become a magnet for opponents to tear apart is a reason to keep him well away from it.

Kane can be interesting without the trinket, perhaps way more so.


----------



## IHaveTillFiveBitch (Nov 11, 2010)

well that sucks if it's true, but thing i'm sure about is it isn't punk's fault, it's the overall product and the lame booking that makes the viewer tune out. and lets be honest here, how long are they going to keep choosing the cena route? five more year and then they'd have nobody that people would care about, because cena is the only draw that wwe has BUILD over the years. No matter how may people hated him they kept pushing his ass and eventually he became a draw.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Mr Premium said:


> fpalm....
> 
> 5/18/98 5.4
> 5/11/98 4.75
> ...




fpalmfpalmfpalm


Something has to happen. Before raw gets to smack down ratings.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Pop Tatari said:


>


Lol nobody ever riots. The only riot happening is in these forums.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Also, just because the WWE title is more valued than the World Heavyweight Championship (for obvious reasons) doesn't mean the World title is meaningless. It's lineage goes back to the NWA roots. Just because the World title has been devalued within years doesn't mean it's completely worthless.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jun 28, 2011)

put the belt on a fucking returning Rock and the ratings STILL wont be high because incase you aren't getting into your thick skulls, WRESTLING ISNT POPULAR, unless it somehow becomes relevant, you will not be seeing higher ratings for years and if it bothers you, please dont tune in until it is relevant for the world again because youre starting to bore not just me but i'm sure you are boring alot of people on here too.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Yes do you not understand how stale the guy was on smack down. Also the world *tittle* that is reaching ecw *tittle* like status if not for orton reigns this year. The more important *tittle* is the raw *tittle*. Its just an idea because there would be no one else that this could work with besides hhh.


*TITLES* not *TITTLES*. There is a difference.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Leechmaster said:


> Funny thing about ratings/buys discussions:
> 
> Fans here complain about buys being low, but those are the same people who have stopped buying PPVs and started streaming them in their basements.
> 
> Fans complain about ratings, but they have no idea how ratings are measures (you'd be surprised how flawed the methodology is) and they also stream/download shows.


14 year low speaks for itself. However flawed that methodology is it's a constant and it clearly shows that people turned off the main event at an alarming rate.

If the ratings were a smashing success you wouldn't be talking about a flawed system and fans not be able to recognize that. 

You can blame it on whatever you want, but it's clear what they did last week was a complete utter disaster.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Also, just because the WWE title is more valued than the World Heavyweight Championship (for obvious reasons) doesn't mean the World title is meaningless. It's lineage goes back to the NWA roots. Just because the World title has been devalued within years doesn't mean it's completely worthless.




I don't even really count the belt too much because as you can see in wwe's world they have it marked from when it was given to hhh in 02. Meaning the new casual fans will think the same as well. Not that the past lineage should be forgotten but that's how its placed in the tittle history with the nwa lineage going all the way to the last wcw champion. From all those champions who looks the most undeserving on looks alone. Also a tittle that has been handed to veterans like kane,show,henry who probably will not sniff a wwe tittle reign but were fighting for the ecw and now have had reigns with this belt recently.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

C_JBennett said:


> *TITLES* not *TITTLES*. There is a difference.


I'm sorry if the extra T irritates you alot :lmao


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Not really.

The point still stands that Kane was a World champion. The World Heavyweight Championship, no matter how the WWE views it and treats it, is still a World title. To say it's equal to the ECW Championship is ludicrous.

Yes, I know about everything you said. Nothing new. So, by your logic, Christian and Mark Henry was never really a World champion. Neither was Khali or Swagger. Some title reigns probably weren't deserved but they still happened, thus being counted as World champions.

So, of course, the WHC will be seen lesser than the WWE title since, you know, the WWE title is the official title of...the WWE.


----------



## ViolenceIsGolden (May 15, 2009)

The problem is not that people don't wanna watch CM Punk with the belt. The problem is WWE doesn't give us any reason to have to watch what's gonna happen next and make the shows as a whole matter especially the main event segments. You could have a roll of toilet paper as the WWE Champion and if the roll of toilet paper is talked about like a dominant, tough force and the show is compelling enough that we wanna watch because it's must see tv then more people will be buying the ppv's or watch to find out next week then the ratings will get better as well. If I wanna see CM Punk these days the way things are going right now then I'll just hit up his videos on Youtube when he was doing good stuff shooting on the WWE.


----------



## Scorpion95 (Apr 24, 2011)

I hear a lot of complaining that CM Punk's character is not evolving. The way he's acting right now, at least from my point of view, won't become stale for at least another year. I don't really see a problem.

Also, why are people saying ratings mean nothing? I'm sure they're important in some way.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

Leechmaster said:


> Fans complain about ratings, *but they have no idea how ratings are measures (you'd be surprised how flawed the methodology is) and they also stream/download shows.*


For the millionth time CM Punk marks, Nielsen is a great system. A system that has an amazing sample, with every possible household demographic covered. With a sample size that is not only statically significant, but has a minuscule standard error. A system that advertisers obsess over, that TV networks obsess over. A system that needs to be completely accurate so that advertising dollars go to the right place. A system that has been proven to be accurate from years of advertising investment (it would've been ditched by now if it didn't work wouldn't it). 

So to respond to your point, yes I know how ratings are measured. The question is, do you know how it's measured or did Eric Bischoff tell you Nielsen sucked and you believed him?


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> The point still stands that Kane was a World champion. The World Heavyweight Championship, no matter how the WWE views it and treats it, is still a World title. To say it's equal to the ECW Championship is ludicrous.


Why? Just because its named a world tittle dosent mean it cant have the same prestige of the defunct hardcore tittle. The wcw 1999-2001 tittle says hi.


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

Scorpion95 said:


> I hear a lot of complaining that CM Punk's character is not evolving. The way he's acting right now, at least from my point of view, won't become stale for at least another year. I don't really see a problem


you're such a little jimmy


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782639 said:


> Not really.
> 
> The point still stands that Kane was a World champion. The World Heavyweight Championship, no matter how the WWE views it and treats it, is still a World title. To say it's equal to the ECW Championship is ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Youre putting words in my mouth that i did not say, im not saying its not a world tittle. Otherwise cena and hhh would be less than ten time champions, but compare the likes of swagger and khali they got the world tittle and not the wwe tittle. Besides miz the wwe tittle has always been given to credible guys in the cena era. Where other guys finally became world champions with the world tittle and why do you think the world tittle was on raw for three years. To make it value more initially while the wwe tittle was on smack down. The world tittle could easily become the top belt again if they switch the tittles again between brands.


----------



## Scorpion95 (Apr 24, 2011)

Cole Phelps said:


> :banplz:


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Why? Just because its named a world tittle dosent mean it cant have the same prestige of the defunct hardcore tittle. The wcw 1999-2001 tittle says hi.


Because the Hardcore title specifically was meant for a target section of the roster. 

Just because WCW handled their World title like shit in the last years it was active doesn't mean it wasn't a World title. The Davis Arquette debacle was horrible, duh, but that didn't mean it wasn't a World title even though I couldn't blame others for not seeing it as such.

It's recognized as a World Heavyweight Championship title. Again, just because it's not equal to the WWE title for obvious reasons doesn't mean it's not a World title. Simple as that.



> Youre putting words in my mouth that i did not say, im not saying its not a world tittle. Otherwise cena and hhh would be less than ten time champions, but compare the likes of swagger and khali they got the world tittle and not the wwe tittle. Besides miz the wwe tittle has always been given to credible guys in the cena era. Where other guys finally became world champions with the world tittle.


Because the WWE Championship is their title and, no matter what brand it was one, was still a credible title. Just because some don't feel the same about the World Heavyweight Championship doesn't mean it's not a credible World title. You're going in circles.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS (Jun 5, 2010)

How many people can watch Raw anyways, competing shows, youtube, streams, people might be working late (like I was) other stuff etc. Things are a lot different now, and WWE needs to step up a bit if they want people to wanna go all out to try and watch Raw like we use to.


----------



## WrestlingFan96 (Jan 10, 2011)

This would be a great decision to make on WWE's part.


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

Scorpion95 said:


>


i edited my post because that was harsh lol i just don't get what people see in punk

* he allways goes back on his word
* acts like he and d.b are the only indy darlings in wrestling history
* acts like a spolied brat


----------



## Demandred (Jun 2, 2008)

Evolution said:


> WWE won't care about the ratings while he's making them a literal shit ton of money through merchandise. End of.




Pretty much this. Sounds like a made up story TBH. Punk is the guy now and theres no question about it. His shirts are EVERYWHERE every week. Just a quick look around the audience and you'll catch 20 of em easily. And he's getting the biggest reactions every week.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jun 28, 2011)

I could probably put my life on it that if the Attitude Era was around these days, it would either not get the ratings it did or it would of been taken off air by now.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

If WWE pulls the plug on Punk
John Cena will be leaving with the belt not Kane.

You can argue that Cena Rock doesn't need the belt all you want but when you look at how WrestleMania is breaking down it's pretty clear that Punk v Jericho or whoever is #4 on the list.

Don't be surprised when Rock v Cena is for the title.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Because the Hardcore title specifically was meant for a target section of the roster.
> 
> Just because WCW handled their World title like shit in the last years it was active doesn't mean it wasn't a World title. The Davis Arquette debacle was horrible, duh, but that didn't mean it wasn't a World title *even though I couldn't blame others for not seeing it as such.*
> 
> It's recognized as a World Heavyweight Championship title. Again, just because it's not equal to the WWE title for obvious reasons doesn't mean it's not a World title. Simple as that.




Its not as simple as that. Others have the same opinion now more than ever with Daniel Bryan as the champion.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Because the WWE Championship is their title and, no matter what brand it was one, was still a credible title. Just because some don't feel the same about the World Heavyweight Championship doesn't mean it's not a credible World title. You're going in circles.[/QUOTE]




Im not, your make different claims after i point something out. The world tittle can be the top belt again by simply switching the tittles between brand again but wwe don't want that.


----------



## saxplayer9291 (Sep 21, 2011)

It was the match not the Champion...


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

> Its not as simple as that. Others have the same opinion now more than ever with Daniel Bryan as the champion.


Don't blame Daniel Bryan. Blame your outstanding creative team for not making him matter until now.

I'm sure the Attitude Era would not have been great if it was around today. Don't give me "Because talent wise..." The talent is there right now but what the AE had was creative writers thinking up great storylines and the AE fit with the atmosphere of pop culture in America at that time. The AE would not work in today's era at all and not because of the talent.



> Im not, your make different claims after i point something out. The world tittle can be the top belt again by simply switching the tittles between brand again but wwe don't want that.


WHAT?

The WWE Championship will always be the bigger championship of the two because it's the very foundation of the WWE. If you mean in terms of quality of the belts, that's an entirely different thing, but the WWE title will always be the bigger World title of the two, period.


----------



## glenwo2 (May 9, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Not that the past lineage should be forgotten but that's how its placed in the title history with the nwa lineage going all the way to the last wcw champion.


The last WCW Champion who is currently kicking it as a Smackdown Announcer.

OH MA GOODNEZZ! HE'S IN MY FAVE FIVE!


----------



## Scorpion95 (Apr 24, 2011)

Cole Phelps said:


> i edited my post because that was harsh lol i just don't get what people see in punk
> 
> * he allways goes back on his word
> * acts like he and d.b are the only indy darlings in wrestling history
> * acts like a spolied brat



That's what I like about him  It's part of his best in the world persona.

I also like how hypocritical he is, since he's at times self-centred, but then exposes a kayfabe friendship with DB and Ryder. But I guess that's what you're supposed to do when you're a tweener? At least if that's what he is now, I still can't tell between face heel or tweener.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782705 said:


> *Don't blame Daniel Bryan. Blame your outstanding creative team for not making him matter until now.
> *
> I'm sure the Attitude Era would not have been great if it was around today. Don't give me "Because talent wise..." The talent is there right now but what the AE had was creative writers thinking up great storylines and the AE fit with the atmosphere of pop culture in America at that time. The AE would not work in today's era at all and not because of the talent.




I blame the character not the person. He has hurt the tittle. If they switch the titles between brands and give the world tittle to cena it would be the top title. Simple as that.


----------



## ViolenceIsGolden (May 15, 2009)

The problem with CM Punks character did a 180 out of nowhere. One week he was doing these "shoot" promos that Triple H was no selling. The next week Triple H kicks CM Punk's ass at the Night of Champions ppv because it's all fake and we all know if the match was a shoot like the promos were suppose to be CM Punk would choke out Triple H's ugly ass in 10 seconds. So then after Night of Champions CM Punk is suppose to be kind of a baby face which is all rushing his face turn too fast. He teams up with Triple H and they lose to Miz/Truth which is suppose to set up Miz/Truth as a tag team that could threaten Rock and Cena at Survivor Series. All this shit is just boring, rushed, and retarded WWE booking that somebody in the back writing the shit thinks will make people wanna buy a ppv? I think not.

So after Triple H and CM Punk tag teamed up CM Punk was suddenly kissing Triple H's ass like he just got out of the same church Shawn Michaels goes to and got a lobotomy or something, what the fuck was that really? It's like Bonnie Hammer or Stephanie McMahon or some dumb bitch told Triple H and Vince McMahon the CM Punk character should be turned into a John Cena type of guy and they talked to Punk and told him his new role and he better do it and make little kids wanna buy CM Punk arm bands.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> I blame the character not the person. He has hurt the tittle. If they switch the titles between brands and give the world tittle to cena it would be the world title. Simple as that.


Wrong.

What was Bryan doing from MITB to before TLC? And what was he doing that made him "hurt" the title?

Hell, I don't agree fully with Bryan holding the WHC myself but to blame that on Bryan when he has had great matches but piss poor booking that would make TNA jealous is outrageous.

If Cena was the WHC, the quality of the belt may be better than the WWE title, sure. But the WWE title is THE title. Period.


----------



## Chicago Warrior (Oct 18, 2010)

Ok I really hope WWE tries to do something different other than CM Punk vs Del Rio for next RAW, as much as I like Del Rio he is just too new and over pushed IMO. I will wait till 1/2/12 because I want to see CM Punk feud with someone with some hype and possibly a more credible and more established opponent.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782730 said:


> *Wrong.*
> 
> What was Bryan doing from MITB to before TLC? And what was he doing that made him "hurt" the title?
> 
> ...


:lmao


How am i wrong? His character has been booked badly since winning money in the bank.
Typical mark. That is my reason why he is hurting the title not another reason, but you may it look like im hating on just cause of size or whatever you think I think.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> :lmao
> 
> 
> How am i wrong?* His character has been booked badly since winning money in the bank.*
> Typical mark.


My whole point exactly.


----------



## ViolenceIsGolden (May 15, 2009)

Ninja Punk said:


> This post simply fails.


So then you should post your opinion troll. I'm not representing the companies future and CM Punk's legacy and success as a professional wrestler. Give me a break son.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

If Cena was the WHC, the quality of the belt may be better than the WWE title, sure. But the WWE title is THE title. Period.[/QUOTE]



Look in the end of the day the wwe tittle will be # 1 no arguments, but look at this example.

Casual fan 1: Hey i heard cena said he was keeping the world tittle to defend it against the rock at wm

Casual fan 2: So DB is gonna feud big show and christian over the wwe tittle.

Casual 1: ???? Its cena and rock man there going after the top belt on raw, i don't watch smack down.

You see the world tittle could be the top belt for a little while if it has the top guys in the tittle scene. Of course it would not be for later wwe would never allow it and rightfully so.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

GillbergReturns said:


> If WWE pulls the plug on Punk
> John Cena will be leaving with the belt not Kane.
> 
> You can argue that Cena Rock doesn't need the belt all you want but when you look at how WrestleMania is breaking down it's pretty clear that Punk v Jericho or whoever is #4 on the list.
> ...


I think thats what Vince is going to do. Punk/Jericho will be similar to Punk/Orton last year; no titles just a grudge match.


----------



## El Dandy (Oct 2, 2007)

2.67 rating?

I guess this is what Punk meant when he said people will be left behind.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782746 said:


> My whole point exactly.


Yes but i simply stated I blame his character and did not further elaborate, yet you assumed im thinking of something else and you gave me your argument which my exact one.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Look in the end of the day the wwe tittle will be # 1 no arguments, but look at this example.
> 
> Casual fan 1: Hey i heard cena said he was keeping the world tittle to defend it against the rock at wm
> 
> ...


You're talking about quality of the titles, not position of the titles (which was my point). Two different things.



> Yes but i simply stated I blame his character and did further elaborate, yet you assumed im thinking of something else and you gave me your argument which my exact one.


Whatever "elaboration" you made doesn't change the fact that, in essence, you pretty much said and agreed with my point.

So I mean...
You're talking about the quality of the belts, not the position of the belts (which I was talking about). Two different things.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jun 28, 2011)

Ninja Punk said:


> Dude stop posting "Wrestling is not popular" Over & Over.
> 
> if its not popular, how do you make it popular again? Only WWE can do that.
> 
> Besides, no one here wants Attitude era ratings. People are blaming punk because the ratings are dropping every week. If punk cant bring in new viewers, he should atleast be able to sustain the ratings above 3.


Are you an absolute moron? WWE can't suddenly make wrestling popular again. They aren't relevant. The era we live in is so PC that the WWE are just catering to that, it's not the business' fault, it's the world in general. Unless it changes, WWE won't, in fact a part of me thinks the creative team are scared to be TOO creative and are playing it safe.

No, no one is mentioning Attitude Era ratings but I can guarantee you the majority of people use THEIR ratings as a benchmark, back when we were in a period where everyone watched the show, trash TV, all it was.

I'm sorry but someone being champion won't change viewers lol what a stupid thing to say. People tune in to see their favourite stars.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> You're talking about the quality of the belts, not the position of the belts (which I was talking about). Two different things.


Yeah thats true but i was stating the quality of the world tittle is reaching ecw tittle level.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

I wounder if Punk is reading this very topic, on this very forum.

Can't wait for a mention on Monday Night Raw.

Come on Punk, don't let me down.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

TheF1BOB said:


> I wounder if Punk is reading this very topic, on this very forum.
> 
> Can't wait for a mention on Monday Night Raw.
> 
> Come on Punk, don't let me down.




Punk: Despite what some internet marks think if you don't get behind this your getting left behind. :lmao


----------



## swagger_ROCKS (Jun 5, 2010)

el dandy said:


> 2.67 rating?
> 
> I guess this is what Punk meant when he said people will be left behind.


I am a fan of the dudes work, but this was funny.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Yeah thats true but i was stating the quality of the world tittle is reaching ecw tittle level.


It hasn't. The WWECW title was never a World title to begin with since it was brand specifc (at the time). 

Again, Bryan as WHC wasn't the best way to go about giving him the title but that's on creative for piss poor booking, not Daniel Bryan.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™;10782798 said:


> It hasn't. The *WWECW title* was never a *World title* to begin with since it was brand specifc (at the time).
> 
> Again, Bryan as WHC wasn't the best way to go about giving him the title but that's on creative for piss poor booking, not Daniel Bryan.


 fpalm

I was making comparisons between the belts not comparing the brands. Hell Tommy dreamer as ecw champ looks more credible than Bryan right know with the world tittle or more or less the same really.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

This is the real problem with the WWE... way too reactionary to weekly ratings. You have to build new stars somewhere and at some point before the old stars leave. And that has been the problem... the WWE got smacked hard when a lot of the old stars bowed out and suddenly they are left with very few marquee names. If they continue with this reactionary booking, they will not be able to recover.


----------



## Kingofstuff (Mar 14, 2010)

Once again in this thread, you see a bunch of folks claiming that Punk needs time become a draw. I don't see how this argument is substantiated at all, because when you look at all the Megastars and faces of the company, such as Hogan, Rock, Austin, Savage, Goldberg, Warrior, Sting, Cena, Batista etc. there's never been a case of them struggling to draw viewers. The problem with such an argument is that it's purely speculative. I'm not saying that Punk can't "draw", but to excuse ratings in such a manner comes off as to apologetic and desperate.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> fpalm
> 
> I was making comparisons between the belts not comparing the brands. Hell Tommy dreamer as ecw champ looks more credible than Bryan right know with the world tittle or more or less the same really.


*Kanye shrug* Eh, fine, we'll go with that.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Kingofstuff said:


> Once again in this thread, you see a bunch of folks claiming that Punk needs time become a draw. I don't see how this argument is substantiated at all, because when you look at all the Megastars and faces of the company, such as Hogan, Rock, Austin, Savage, Goldberg, Warrior, Sting, Cena, Batista etc. there's never been a case of them struggling to draw viewers. The problem with such an argument is that it's purely speculative. I'm not saying that Punk can't "draw", but to excuse ratings in such a manner comes off as to apologetic and desperate.


Uh... Austin didn't revive the ratings magically in 96... and Rock was on the verge of being future endeavoured it seemed at one point. Some come in and have an immediate impact, but many many stars took years to build and be able to draw. 

Do people really think all megastars just suddenly entered the ring and on day one were the biggesst things on the planet? Hell, most of them have had 10 plus years toiling in the midcard before finally finding that success. If we thought as you did we never would have had an Austin or a Rock that so many here adore.


----------



## Bushmaster (Sep 28, 2010)

Who knew the Internet Wrestling Community would care so much about freaking ratings. That we can get 30 pages lol. The product have been good. We always begged for fresh new things. We had Henry as champ and very entertaining and some ppl hated that. We have Zack Ryder who is actually in a very good upper midcard feud and ppl hate it, Punk and DB are champs and ppl still hate it. I know Punk and DB has haters but why arent ppl just happy with something new and fresh. They started off Raw this past week completely different. It wasnt Cena or Orton starting it off it was fresh faces. With NBA coming back WWE probably wont beat them. Im a huge NBA fan and i would flip channels for sure. I understand they care about Ratings but im sure the merch sales for Punk are great.


----------



## Art13 (Nov 5, 2010)

Wow, what a shitstorm...

Anyway, here's hoping this is just the usual dirtsheet speculation being passed off as news. I would think WWE have more sense than to make such a knee jerk reaction, especially considering how flawed the ratings system is, for reasons that don't need to be repeated. 

What I will say though, is that people need to realise the Nielsen rating is only a sample audience, 10,000 people (iirc) in a country that has a population of over 300 million. Now admittedly that is a decent sample size and for most programs it's pretty much the only, therefore best gauge of the popularity of said program and various elements of it, WWE however have the advantage of having a weekly, live sample audience, that is often larger than the Nielsen sample, telling them EXACTLY how they feel about their programming. Now judging by the sea of "Best In The World" shirts, huge ovations and loud chants all around the US, I would say the WWE audience is definitely giving Punk the thumbs up.


----------



## Kingofstuff (Mar 14, 2010)

Kabraxal said:


> Uh... Austin didn't revive the ratings magically in 96... and Rock was on the verge of being future endeavoured it seemed at one point. Some come in and have an immediate impact, but many many stars took years to build and be able to draw.


 Lulz at this argument. Austin didn't revive ratings in 96, because he was the Ringmaster. As for the Rock......"Die Rocky, Die!" Neither one of those guys were established main eventers. When I said the Megastars didn't struggle like Punk did, I meant that they were hot after there first initial title run. 



> Do people really think all megastars just suddenly entered the ring and on day one were the biggesst things on the planet? Hell, most of them have had 10 plus years toiling in the midcard before finally finding that success. If we thought as you did we never would have had an Austin or a Rock that so many here adore.


Oh of course! Except Cm Punk was a 3X world champion and 2x money in the bank winner by the time he got his run during the summer.........there's no valid analogy to be made.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> *Kanye shrug* Eh, fine, we'll go with that.


Sure, if you feel better we will go with your logic.


----------



## sesshomaru (Dec 11, 2006)

While Meltzer is likely dramitizing it, I'm sure that they are considering giving the title back to Cena. However, we won't know if Cena will get the title back until we know the TLC buyrates. If they're really low, then Cena will likely win the title at the RR. That will give Punk another month with the title.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Kingofstuff said:


> Lulz at this argument. Austin didn't revive ratings in 96, because he was the Ringmaster. As for the Rock......"Die Rocky, Die!" Neither one of those guys were established main eventers. When I said the Megastars didn't struggle like Punk did, I meant that they were hot after there first initial title run.
> 
> Oh of course! Except Cm Punk was a 3X world champion and 2x money in the bank winner by the time he got his run during the summer.........there's no valid analogy to be made.


And when he was pushed later that year under his new gimmick it took a while for the ratings to catch up to the product... that is how the business works. But the past few years the WWE panics and cuts the legs out of their superstars. And please... show me how Punk was booked like a legit main eventer until recently. He lost how many PPV matches in a row before finally winning? And even after that they had the poor booking after MitB that shifted focus to HHH and Nash more than him before finally righting the ship recently. And that is discounting that the product as a whole is not that good... one man cannot save a show. Austin had the Rock and Foley and HHH and Taker and Kane and a stacked midcard and tag division with Lita and Trish entering near the end as well... that is a product that has something to watch at EVERY LEVEL.

You haven't had that a lot recently. SO please, come back after 6 months of consistent overall booking and a strong CM Punk push and then maybe this stupid ass ratings argument won't look foolish. 

We have evidence that shows it takes time... stop ignoring it just to bash something.


----------



## Fargerov (Sep 20, 2011)

I pretty sure more than one person being champion would affect the ratings. Who cares about ratings anyway?


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Mark Henry drafted to Raw


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Fargerov said:


> I pretty sure more than one person being champion would affect the ratings. Who cares about ratings anyway?


WWE and Vince Mcmahon. The report stated that * WWE officials*, not the IWC, are considering taking the title off Punk.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Where the hell is Grand Master Sexy when you need him???


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Sure, if you feel better we will go with your logic.


Um.....alright.

Anyways actually getting back on topic, I'm sure this report is exaggerating and that they'll give Punk a good title reign, hopefully, so by the time Mania comes along the fans will be really behind him in his match with whoever.


----------



## ScrewYou (Jun 7, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> Ratings.


We dont watch wrestling for the ratings. We watch it to enjoy ourselves.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Um.....alright.
> 
> Anyways actually getting back on topic, I'm sure this report is exaggerating and that they'll give Punk a good title reign, hopefully, so by the time Mania comes along the fans will be really behind him in his match with whoever.


 :lmao You cant let anything go can you?


----------



## ChrisMax (Dec 21, 2011)

Guys we should start making online pay-per-views where smarks could argue over skype. The pay-per-view could be called _Final Argument_ the main event should be bitter Rock smarks vs. defensive CM Punk smarks. I'm telling you guys, this would make a ton of money.


----------



## MrWalsh (Feb 21, 2010)

Making Kane champion again would be boring 
I understand he has a new gimmick now with the mask but either way hes still doing the same old tired Mega monster heel thing.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

ScrewYou said:


> We dont watch wrestling for the ratings. We watch it to enjoy ourselves.


Of course true wrestling fans only watch wrestling for the show and not for the ratings. What, do people actually watch, say, Cena do a suplex on Miz and say "Yep, that'll decrease the rating by 3%"? 

Pathetic.


----------



## ScrewYou (Jun 7, 2011)

Winning™;10782943 said:


> Of course true wrestling fans only watch wrestling for the show and not for the ratings. What, do people actually watch, say, Cena do a suplex on Miz and say "Yep, that'll decrease the rating by 3%"?
> 
> Pathetic.


You deserve a rep.
EDIT: I gave you too much.


----------



## Kingofstuff (Mar 14, 2010)

Kabraxal said:


> And when he was pushed later that year under his new gimmick it took a while for the ratings to catch up to the product... that is how the business works. But the past few years the WWE panics and cuts the legs out of their superstars. And please... show me how Punk was booked like a legit main eventer until recently. He lost how many PPV matches in a row before finally winning? And even after that they had the poor booking after MitB that shifted focus to HHH and Nash more than him before finally righting the ship recently. And that is discounting that the product as a whole is not that good... one man cannot save a show.


There's some truth to this, yes but no of this changes the fact that Punk isn't an unknown and that other upcoming megastars never had ratings drops after their title wins/defenses.



> Austin had the Rock and Foley and HHH and Taker and Kane and a stacked midcard and tag division with Lita and Trish entering near the end as well... that is a product that has something to watch at EVERY LEVEL.


 Austin had all of these guys *after* his feuds with Hart and Michaels. Do you no what guys where in the main event picture when Austin was built up? Sid, Michaels, and Hart. And yet the second he got his first title run, the ratings shot up to a 3.8(the highest of the year at the time) and continued to go up even higher. 

Besides this whole "Austin had real talent to work with" works both ways. The only reason why Punk is close to being the face of the company right now, is because of *how shitty the roster is!* Punk has shit loads of talent, but be real. If there were more legitimate main enters, guys in the attitude era calibur of talent, do you honestly believe Punk would have a snowball chance in hell at being Mcmahons first choice for face of the company? Punk is in a similar situation as Michaels and Hart. Both got their pushes because of the big steroid scandal. That meant no more larger than life, super charismatic physical specimens to represent the company. There's a very good reason why guys this talented don't draw as well as someone like Goldberg, Batista, or Warrior. Casual people, believe it or not love to see colossal juggernauts with badass looks throw down in ring. I know it sucks to many of us on the internet but that's just the sad reality of it all.



> You haven't had that a lot recently. SO please, come back after 6 months of consistent overall booking and a strong CM Punk push and then maybe this stupid ass ratings argument won't look foolish.
> 
> We have evidence that shows it takes time... stop ignoring it just to bash something.


I'll reserve judgment and I wish only the best for Punk, but simply put, it's just as bad to excuse his ratings performance right now based off of unsupported theories, as is to shit on him for it.


----------



## CM Jewels (Nov 19, 2011)

CM Jewels said:


> You people care about draws because?
> 
> You think it strengthens your bitch ass smarky IWC opinion?
> 
> ...



Quoting myself for relevance.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

Winning™ said:


> Of course true wrestling fans only watch wrestling for the show and not for the ratings. What, do people actually watch, say, Cena do a suplex on Miz and say "Yep, that'll decrease the rating by 3%"?
> 
> Pathetic.


There's not a single person on this forum who doesn't watch wrestling for entertainment purposes. You are participating in a ratings thread, yet you're not interested by the show's ratings at all? Sure.


----------



## CaptainObvious (Jul 12, 2011)

And who would they give the title to? Cena again?


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

rcc said:


> There's not a single person on this forum who doesn't watch wrestling for entertainment purposes. You are participating in a ratings thread, yet you're not interested by the show's ratings at all? Sure.


No, I'm not. That's why I don't argue about them, other than to counterpoint other's opinions about a subject when using ratings which is all they are there for.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

So hypothetically, next week CM Punk's main event gains a 4.0 rating. You're telling me you wouldn't be here proclaiming some revolution has started and if we're out, we're going to be left behind? I think a pretty big double standard is in existence here.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

CaptainObvious said:


> And who would they give the title to? Cena again?


Thats the choice that I think WWE will make. They did the same thing to Del Rio, shitting on his title reign because Vince wasn't happy with the ratings. Cena's getting weaker ratings by the month, but WWE still had better ratings during his feud with Miz and Truth rather than when Punk was the focal point. If within the next few weeks, ratings are still the same, I'm betting Cena regains the title by Royal Rumble.


----------



## deadmanwatching (Dec 14, 2011)

Miz, orton, Kane, Wade Barrett,Sheamus .. Can also be better Choice


It's not Like Punk is the only guy who can carry the belt


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

rcc said:


> So hypothetically, next week CM Punk's main event gains a 4.0 rating. You're telling me you wouldn't be here proclaiming some revolution has started and if we're out, we're going to be left behind? I think a pretty big double standard is in existence here.


You're missing the point.

I wouldn't, by the way, because I know that that rating isn't going to "BAM! New era!" It'll take time and consistency to get to that point where it is directly clear. It's not there yet but it's very clear a new direction will be coming soon.

By the way, when I mention that phrase, I don't relate it to ratings. I relate it to the overall product and quality of said product. It's clearly changing, whether ratings reflect that or not. Ratings are used as a biased talking point to help one's side of an argument. Unless you're an expert or a shareholder, no they shouldn't matter to you. Simple.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Kingofstuff said:


> There's some truth to this, yes but no of this changes the fact that Punk isn't an unknown and that other upcoming megastars never had ratings drops after their title wins/defenses.
> 
> Austin had all of these guys *after* his feuds with Hart and Michaels. Do you no what guys where in the main event picture when Austin was built up? Sid, Michaels, and Hart. And yet the second he got his first title run, the ratings shot up to a 3.8(the highest of the year at the time) and continued to go up even higher.
> 
> ...


I excuse it because nothing is drawing right now. Even the Rock hasn't brought the numbers to staggering heights. That screams that the overall product is pushing fans away.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Amber B said:


> You think they give that much of a damn about that right now? Yes, the Miz was unproven but guess who he was in the main event against? John Cena.
> 
> They are doing with Cena what they did with HHH years ago. Have him fuck around in a random feud that has nothing to do with the title and come February, he'll get the title back and go into Mania with it. This is absolutely nothing new. They will troll us for a few weeks and make you squeal and splooge over Punk/Bryan being champs and will take those straps off of them when it truly matters.


But Cena/Rock will be such a huge draw no title is needed.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> But Cena/Rock will be such a huge draw no title is needed.


Giving the title to Cena isn't for the Wrestlemania match, its for the television and PPV ratings before Wrestlemania.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

LarryCoon said:


> Giving the title to Cena isn't for the Wrestlemania match, its for the television and PPV ratings before Wrestlemania.


Ratings survived the ten months Cena did not have the belt. That included Wrestlemania season.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Kabraxal said:


> I excuse it because nothing is drawing right now. Even the Rock hasn't brought the numbers to staggering heights. That screams that the overall product is pushing fans away.


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is this so hard for people to understand.


----------



## The Absolute (Aug 26, 2008)

> *Michael Cole:* Oh my God! Doink the Clown is cashing in on the Money-In-The-Bank briefcase! We have a new WWE Champion!!!


Ratings through the roof if that happened.

Anyway, I don't expect Punk to hold the title past 'Mania anyway (regardless of who he faces), so this news isn't really all that shocking to me. However, they know people are tried of seeing guys like Cena, the Miz and Del Rio hold the belt.

Me thinks it's time to give a certain #heel a main event push. :hmm:


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> Ratings survived the ten months Cena did not have the belt. That included Wrestlemania season.


Vince panics from time to time. Also, ratings were already declining, and this is sort of a low point.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

LarryCoon said:


> Vince panics from time to time. Also, ratings were already declining, and this is sort of a low point.


He panics too much. He needs to give it time. People don't become draws overnight. If you want to involve Cena more in the show, fine; but Cena being champ is only a band-aid. Besides, it's not like there's no football on Monday Night, oh wait.


----------



## KiNgoFKiNgS23 (Feb 13, 2008)

the overreaction in this thread is ridiculous.



rcc said:


> For the millionth time CM Punk marks, Nielsen is a great system. A system that has an amazing sample, with every possible household demographic covered. With a sample size that is not only statically significant, but has a minuscule standard error. A system that advertisers obsess over, that TV networks obsess over. A system that needs to be completely accurate so that advertising dollars go to the right place. A system that has been proven to be accurate from years of advertising investment (it would've been ditched by now if it didn't work wouldn't it).
> 
> So to respond to your point, yes I know how ratings are measured. The question is, do you know how it's measured or did Eric Bischoff tell you Nielsen sucked and you believed him?


it is a flawed system, but if you want to go by neilsen they are still one of the highest rated cable shows and more people watch now then on the build to one of the biggest matches in the history of the company(Austin/Rock WM17).


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

KiNgoFKiNgS23 said:


> the overreaction in this thread is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> it is a flawed system, but if you want to go by neilsen they are still one of the highest rated cable shows and more people watch now then on the build to one of the biggest matches in the history of the company(Austin/Rock WM17).


Explain please?


----------



## Coffey (Dec 18, 2011)

Nielsen Ratings are dated due to internet and DVR.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

Cookie Monster said:


> Are you an absolute moron? WWE can't suddenly make wrestling popular again. They aren't relevant. The era we live in is so PC that the WWE are just catering to that, it's not the business' fault, it's the world in general. Unless it changes, WWE won't, in fact a part of me thinks the creative team are scared to be TOO creative and are playing it safe.
> 
> No, no one is mentioning Attitude Era ratings but I can guarantee you the majority of people use THEIR ratings as a benchmark, back when we were in a period where everyone watched the show, trash TV, all it was.
> 
> I'm sorry but someone being champion won't change viewers lol what a stupid thing to say. People tune in to see their favourite stars.


Ok I'm guessing that 

A. You weren't old enough to watch the AE back in it's time

B. You are such a huge mark for today's WWE that it leads you to despise the AE even though you know in your heart it was better

or

C. You'er delusional

If you call the attitude era trash tv than what do you call the product that we have today?


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Quit, proof. There are some who actually see the Attitude Era objectively and not just a nostalgia trip. You'd be surprised.


----------



## Coffey (Dec 18, 2011)

To be fair, the Attitude Era had a *TON* of trash too, people just look back with rose-colored glasses and remember the good. For every memorable Austin moment or funny Rock one-liner, there was also Val Venis getting his dick cut-off by Kaientai, or Mae Young giving birth to a rubber hand that Mark Henry was the father of.


----------



## deadmanwatching (Dec 14, 2011)

Theproof said:


> Ok I'm guessing that
> 
> A. You weren't old enough to watch the AE back in it's time
> 
> ...


I go with C
(Y)


----------



## Mike` (Mar 26, 2011)

Can't believe I just read a post with someone saying the Nielsen system is great.. Give me a break lol.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

Mike` said:


> Can't believe I just read a post with someone saying the Nielsen system is great.. Give me a break lol.


Fair enough, prove to me why I'm wrong and that the Nielsen system is flawed.


----------



## Romanista (Jul 13, 2011)

Theproof said:


> Ok I'm guessing that
> 
> A. You weren't old enough to watch the AE back in it's time
> 
> ...


D. I hate smarks.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Tivo, internet it's been around for awhile. It's not like it started last Monday.

That was the worse rated main event, period. There's no excuses that you could come up for it other than it didn't draw.

You guys need to focus on why it didn't draw not the Nielson ratings system. It may have it flaws, but it's a constant. All of the factors you guys want to come up with have been around all year yet this week's ratings was the undoubtedly the worse. 

Here's my opinion. Bryan, Punk, Ryder It's a trio that appeals to basement dwelling nerds, and that's it. The ratings reflected that. You got to separate them, and put them in mainstream feuds. Orton, Cena, Triple H. Guys who casuals like.


----------



## HiddenViolence (Jan 15, 2011)

If they actually take it off him then just another short, meaningless title reign added to the list. He neesd to carry that damn belt until WM28 and feud with Chris Jericho. Now that will draw.


----------



## Mr Premium (Nov 15, 2011)

andersonasshole900 said:


> If they actually take it off him then just another short, meaningless title reign added to the list. He neesd to carry that damn belt until WM28 and feud with Chris Jericho. Now that will draw.


If recent indication already states that he isn't a draw, then why would his feud with Jericho be?



Walk-In said:


> To be fair, the Attitude Era had a *TON* of trash too, people just look back with rose-colored glasses and remember the good. For every memorable Austin moment or funny Rock one-liner, there was also *Val Venis getting his dick cut-off by Kaientai, or Mae Young giving birth to a rubber hand that Mark Henry was the father of*.


The difference is back then sh*ts like that were in the minority. Nowadays, you find sh*t everywhere you watch. You have champions that are as intimidating as a French poodle. You have bland characters everywhere.


----------



## Aficionado (Jul 16, 2008)

I find it a shame CM Punk get's the shit end of this stick. It's just a symptom of being considered the next 'face' after this very mild John Cena era and trying to meet the expectations that come along with it. He's the champion during one of the lowest, most uninteresting of times for professional wrestling. You would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to ignore the guy has marketability and that his popularity is on the rise despite these dire times. The saddest part is it took them 6 years and an expiring contract to pay enough attention to him to give him a chance.

It's one thing to dislike or even hate Punk or believe he is not deserving of his spot, whatever. It's absolutely perposturous to think that simply removing him from the main event will suddenly cure the WWE from this ratings infection they've had for awhile. There's a constant, and it's been happening over the long term way before CM Punk became WWE Champion.

Personally I think if they wanted to make him the next main man, they completely sabatoged themselves back in August. Even after his premature return and all that pointless crap with Triple H, they should have milked a chase for the Title all the way to Mania just like Cena had in 2005 and Austin got in 1998. Not only did they play hot potato yet again, they put the belt back on him eliminating any threat of someone taking it away. It's all backwards. The money is in the chase but I digress.


----------



## sesshomaru (Dec 11, 2006)

andersonasshole900 said:


> If they actually take it off him then just another short, meaningless title reign added to the list. He neesd to carry that damn belt until WM28 and feud with Chris Jericho. Now that will draw.


Chris Jericho...a draw?


----------



## Deebow (Jan 2, 2011)

I'll believe it when I see it. Didn't f4wonline.com also report that Christian's return feud was going to be with Bryan over the MITB briefcase?


----------



## chronoxiong (Apr 1, 2005)

In Darth Vader's voice, "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!"


----------



## Scorpion95 (Apr 24, 2011)

Chris Jericho is ABSOLUTELY a draw. I started watching wrestling cos of him and Taker!


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Unless they're going to put the belt on Henry I don't see how taking it off Punk would be a smart move in any way.


----------



## Mike` (Mar 26, 2011)

rcc said:


> Fair enough, prove to me why I'm wrong and that the Nielsen system is flawed.


You can't seriously think the Nielsen system is accurate lol. It's a sample based on a small amount of people. Just because some of those people are or aren't interested in something doesn't mean the rest of us share the same views. You can test every demographic to try and get the best results but just because people share the same demographic doesn't mean that they share the same interests obviously. Plus, many people now watch shows online/via other methods.

Just because Nielsen is the most common method doesn't mean it's accurate. Yes it's the best system around but it's FAR from being perfect.


----------



## sesshomaru (Dec 11, 2006)

Mike` said:


> You can't seriously think the Nielsen system is accurate lol. It's a sample based on a small amount of people. Just because some of those people are or aren't interested in something doesn't mean the rest of us share the same views. You can test every demographic to try and get the best results but just because people share the same demographic doesn't mean that they share the same interests obviously. Plus, many people now watch shows online/via other methods.
> 
> Just because Nielsen is the most common method doesn't mean it's accurate. Yes it's the best system around but it's FAR from being perfect.


Really, who cares? Their ratings (and PPV buyrates) are what WWE responds too, so debating the legitimicy of Nielsen is just a red herring. The topic's about WWE's response to low ratings, not "are the ratings legit"? As far as we know, WWE panics when ratings dip, hense the premature conclusion to Punk's summer storyline.


----------



## Cosmic Gate (Nov 2, 2011)

I love how people shit on the Nielsen system when it reflects badly on their hero CM Punk but if it was anyone else they'd all be in agreement that person needs to lose the belt. Miz, Del Rio, Orton et al all got shit on when ratings were down during their reigns but as soon it's Punk you get 1000 excuees.

The Nielsen ratings may not be perfect but guess what it is the industry standard and the Networks do take them seriously even if all the IWC experts don't

Also in regards to the merchandise point, Orton still sells a shit load of merch especially in the kids and women departments (and also the mens, DVDs etc.) I guess that means he deserves to be champion


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

OP where did you get this info? I'm at the F4W site and I don't see anything....


----------



## Bruze (Sep 23, 2006)

The sooner the better, dunno why he a champ in the first place, the guy is a midcarder at best, shouldnt be main eventing ppvs especially winning them. He is boring as fu*k, does the same shit week in and week out, says he wanted change, but from june till now i havent seen change, guys gotta go back in the midcard. rather have cena champ tbh, guy brings ratings.


----------



## faceface (Dec 15, 2010)

The more assholes I see trying to further piss off the already disappointed Punk fans (why?) the more I realise he's keeping the belt for a long time. Punk's here to stay. These "fans" who are apparently tuning out are going to come to realise that. This is just a period of inevitable resistance.


----------



## TheLambOfDeth (Mar 18, 2010)

Cosmic Gate said:


> Also in regards to the merchandise point, Orton still sells a shit load of merch especially in the kids and women departments (and also the mens, DVDs etc.) I guess that means he deserves to be champion



...umm...it sort of does. Anyway,

Do people on this site have stock in the WWE or what? If not then these rating obsessions from random reports needs to stop. Over the past few years anyone not named Cena has received "lolbadratingz", and usually there's a knee-jerk reaction to follow that never solves more than adding more convolution after the initial and temporary shock wears off. Perhaps mre time should be built toward establishing credible opponents in lieu of focusing on only building one major talent, while forsaking others. Personally, i'm not really a Punk guy, BUT who else do you give the title to for ratings? Del Rio? Miz? Perhaps the underdeveloped main event pool, and descending mainstream popularity have a bit to do with such sub-par ratings. That being said, if this whole punk experiment doesn't prove to be more fruitful, then you really can't blame the WWE for pulling the plug. Punk moves shirt merch, but that should be a given for any true main-eventer.

It's also pretty funny to see people turn on the guy. Few months ago he was the best wrestler in history, now he's a boring, sloppy hack with no drawing capability.


----------



## The Cynical Miracle (Dec 10, 2006)

LOL Melzter.

I remember when he was on the LAW and the radio hosts say "what Mania matches are planned" and Melzter replies "erm, Rock vs Cena and.... er, the Undertaker match... I'm not sure though" 

Punks the biggest merch seller in the company, his BITW shirt is still the top selling shirt on wweshop.com, neither Rock's new shirt or Cena's new shirt has over took it, therefore he is making a shit load of money for the company.

Punk is the most over face in the company and whats this bullshit about Punks segments losing ratings all the time, forever. Are we forgetting on the same show that the opening segment with Punk was the highest rated segment on the show, even more then the Cena and Kane one. 

All I have to say is lol dirtsheets.


----------



## Green Light (Sep 17, 2011)

Having the top selling men's T-shirt doesn't make Punk the biggest merch seller in the company. There are hundreds of other items getting sold too and I'd bet my house on the fact that Cena stills sells the most merch overall, not to mention guys like The Rock (who has something ridiculous like 17 men's T-shirts being sold, 3 of those in the top 10) Randy Orton, Miz, Austin, Zack Ryder, Triple H etc. still shift a lot of merch

Anyway this report sounds like Meltzer just read the ratings thread on this forum and came up the article based on that :lmao


----------



## NJ88 (Jan 27, 2009)

I very much doubt this is true and I'll believe it when I see it. One badly rated segment isnt enough to take the title off somebody, especially when that somebody is selling them a shit ton of merchandise everyday.

It's not one single person who draws in the show, and it hasn't been for years and years now. The show itself is a draw. If they put on a shitty one, if they dont have compelling storylines with their top guys, if they dont have the strength in the heels they once did then the viewer will turn out. Ratings should never be blamed on one single guy.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

Mike` said:


> You can't seriously think the Nielsen system is accurate lol. It's a sample based on a small amount of people. Just because some of those people are or aren't interested in something doesn't mean the rest of us share the same views. You can test every demographic to try and get the best results but just because people share the same demographic doesn't mean that they share the same interests obviously. Plus, many people now watch shows online/via other methods.
> 
> Just because Nielsen is the most common method doesn't mean it's accurate. Yes it's the best system around but it's FAR from being perfect.


The sample is large enough to be statistically significant, otherwise it wouldn't be credible. What that means is that a larger sample won't decrease the error (which is typically only a few percent). 

People like to believe that everyone are unique. When it comes down to it, we all share pretty similar values based on age, wealth, race, education etc. Why are political polls able to match the results of elections so well? They use a similar size of sample. Marketers spend half their life working out market segments and they're scarily accurate. 

People watching online is irrelevant because that doesn't make WWE, USA or the advertisers a single dime (if it does Nielsen has an online department to measure that).I'm not going to claim it's perfect, but it certainly isn't flawed.


----------



## BANKSY (Aug 21, 2011)

People didn't want to see Punk team up with two mid carders against uncredible heels?

Shock.


----------



## Shock (Nov 6, 2007)

I hate it, but CM Punk, Bryan and other Internet Favourites will never be anything other than an opportunity to change the channel to casual fans.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

Green Light said:


> Having the top selling men's T-shirt doesn't make Punk the biggest merch seller in the company. There are hundreds of other items getting sold too and I'd bet my house on the fact that Cena stills sells the most merch overall, not to mention guys like The Rock (who has something ridiculous like 17 men's T-shirts being sold, 3 of those in the top 10) Randy Orton, Miz, Austin, Zack Ryder, Triple H etc. still shift a lot of merch


This, LOL @ Punk as the best merchandise seller, the guy is a one hit wonder, sold one shirt good and all the other items are way down the list, since 11/14 Rock's "Boots To Asses" shirt is the number 1 selling shirt, WWE confirmed that on their Twitter page, The Rock has 3 items in the top 10, even Austin has 2, and not even that, overall Orton is probably selling a lot more than him, he has way more selling items. Rock is the undisputed number 1, Cena is probably 2 and then you got Austin, Orton Miz etc all selling good in many items, Punk is not even top 5. and just so you know, because all I see is Punk/indy fanboys going to the merchandise, Punk had just one good, bigger than normal month in August, that's it, July was down, September/October down, and November is probably up because of The Rock. funny to read all the clueless Punk marks in threads like that, just like one guy who was so desperate, he tried to compare Austin's huge title run in 98 and said that it took time because he was a failure, comedy, keep them coming on this level.


----------



## RyderPunkRhodes201 (Nov 24, 2011)

this is stupid you can blam alot of thing but you cant blame on foot ball or a single person like punk or a zack at some point creative gonna have to look them self in the mirror and blam them selves nobody is gonna sit ther a entire shitty show i know if i wasnt a big wrestling fan i wouldent there not doing any thing to draw in non wrestling fan and rating dont change over night give it time puting to back on cena is not gonna do any thing that have to be looking at the future and doing this is a set back and it gonna make fans hate cena more


----------



## RyderPunkRhodes201 (Nov 24, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> This, LOL @ Punk as the best merchandise seller, the guy is a one hit wonder, sold one shirt good and all the other items are way down the list, since 11/14 Rock's "Boots To Asses" shirt is the number 1 selling shirt, WWE confirmed that on their Twitter page, The Rock has 3 items in the top 10, even Austin has 2, and not even that, overall Orton is probably selling a lot more than him, he has way more selling items. Rock is the undisputed number 1, Cena is probably 2 and then you got Austin, Orton Miz etc all selling good in many items, Punk is not even top 5. and just so you know, because all I see is Punk/indy fanboys going to the merchandise, Punk had just one good, bigger than normal month in August, that's it, July was down, September/October down, and November is probably up because of The Rock. funny to read all the clueless Punk marks in threads like that, just like one guy who was so desperate, he tried to compare Austin's huge title run in 98 and said that it took time because he was a failure, comedy, keep them coming on this level.


get out of here with that when do u ever see a orton shirt in the crowd i see more zach ryder stuff then orton stuff orton shirt never been appealing


----------



## The Cynical Miracle (Dec 10, 2006)

Rock316AE said:


> This, LOL @ Punk as the best merchandise seller, the guy is a one hit wonder, sold one shirt good and all the other items are way down the list, since 11/14 Rock's "Boots To Asses" shirt is the number 1 selling shirt, WWE confirmed that on their Twitter page, The Rock has 3 items in the top 10, even Austin has 2, and not even that, overall Orton is probably selling a lot more than him, he has way more selling items. Rock is the undisputed number 1, Cena is probably 2 and then you got Austin, Orton Miz etc all selling good in many items, Punk is not even top 5. and just so you know, because all I see is Punk/indy fanboys going to the merchandise, Punk had just one good, bigger than normal month in August, that's it, July was down, September/October down, and November is probably up because of The Rock. funny to read all the clueless Punk marks in threads like that, just like one guy who was so desperate, he tried to compare Austin's huge title run in 98 and said that it took time because he was a failure, comedy, keep them coming on this level.


The Rocks shirt was the best selling shirt of Novemeber, not overall. Dude just look at the website, hell look at the womens listing too, Punks shirt is outselling Ortons, Miz's, Rock's etc You are in no position what so ever to call others blind and clueless.


----------



## evoked21 (Feb 23, 2011)

the only guy besides zack who will get chants almost anywhere right now? lol.


----------



## wwffans123 (Feb 13, 2009)

lol at some people think rating is nothing,get the fuck out!
if rating is nothing,Raw should on air at 9:00 am.

lol at my english


----------



## Virgil_85 (Feb 6, 2006)

Nearly 40 pages on a speculative piece about ratings during the holiday period? 

Successful troll is successful.


----------



## Art13 (Nov 5, 2010)

Rock316AE said:


> This, LOL @ Punk as the best merchandise seller, the guy is a one hit wonder, sold one shirt good and all the other items are way down the list, since 11/14 Rock's "Boots To Asses" shirt is the number 1 selling shirt, WWE confirmed that on their Twitter page, The Rock has 3 items in the top 10, even Austin has 2, and not even that, overall Orton is probably selling a lot more than him, he has way more selling items. Rock is the undisputed number 1, Cena is probably 2 and then you got Austin, Orton Miz etc all selling good in many items, Punk is not even top 5. and just so you know, because all I see is Punk/indy fanboys going to the merchandise, Punk had just one good, bigger than normal month in August, that's it, July was down, September/October down, and November is probably up because of The Rock. funny to read all the clueless Punk marks in threads like that, just like one guy who was so desperate, he tried to compare Austin's huge title run in 98 and said that it took time because he was a failure, comedy, keep them coming on this level.


If you make a post like that and honestly believe yourself when you claim to be "objective", I seriously question your mental health. You claim to only post "facts" yet this entire post is filled with baseless, wild, biased assumptions and very little else. Miz sells more than Punk? Do you open your fucking eyes when you watch Raw?

Also, why do you and the other rating obsessed completely ignore crowd reactions? Raw attendance numbers are approximately the same number as the Nielsen sample audience, often larger and considering you can actually see and hear exactly how they feel about any particular wrestler, I would say this is a far more accurate measure of a talent's popularity. Now you can harp on about TV REVENUEZZ!, but for one, this is not your concern, plus I'm doubtful such small variations would have any impact on them anyway.


----------



## Xiphias (Dec 20, 2006)

Can someone explain to me how ratings are affected by who is the current champion in WWE's game of musical chairs?

Are fans really such fickle whiny bitches?


----------



## TankOfRate (Feb 21, 2011)

Theproof said:


> Ok I'm guessing that
> 
> A. You weren't old enough to watch the AE back in it's time
> 
> ...


Uh, the AE WAS Trash TV. That was it's whole appeal. It was raunchy, controversial and full of trashy characters, stories, segments, all in the name of rating pops and making money. If you're upset about the Era being referred to as Trash TV and use the ol' "OMG WHAT ABOUT THIS PG CRAP TODAY" argument, I don't think you understand what Trash TV is.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Blame HHH.

He never put punk over.


----------



## deatawaits (Sep 25, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> This, LOL @ Punk as the best merchandise seller, the guy is a one hit wonder, sold one shirt good and all the other items are way down the list, since 11/14 Rock's "Boots To Asses" shirt is the number 1 selling shirt, WWE confirmed that on their Twitter page, The Rock has 3 items in the top 10, even Austin has 2, and not even that, overall Orton is probably selling a lot more than him, he has way more selling items. Rock is the undisputed number 1, Cena is probably 2 and then you got Austin, Orton Miz etc all selling good in many items, Punk is not even top 5. and just so you know, because all I see is Punk/indy fanboys going to the merchandise, Punk had just one good, bigger than normal month in August, that's it, July was down, September/October down, and November is probably up because of The Rock. funny to read all the clueless Punk marks in threads like that, just like one guy who was so desperate, he tried to compare Austin's huge title run in 98 and said that it took time because he was a failure, comedy, keep them coming on this level.


read this if you have EYES.


> Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter
> 
> -- Daniel-Olivier Pepin sent this one along: John Cena has been topped as WWE's top merchandise seller by CM Punk. For the first time in five years, a regular wrestler has topped John Cena. The Rock had previously accomplished this during his short return, but in addition to topping Cena, Punk has also topped the single day sales record of the Rock. This is the first time in 5-years anyone has topped Cena from within the company and not only has Punk done so at WWE Shopzone, but also at live events Punk is the merchandise king.
> 
> Read more: http://www.WrestlingInc.com/wi/news/2011/1021/545972/#ixzz1hSBr83xX



And please explain how that was just normal.I will say I agree that Punk isn't a draw but if you simply ignore the fact that he is actually selling merch is pathetic.this guy's shirts are most visible in the crowd and His T shirt was still the best seller and no 1 even after cena's new shirt and 6 fucking months.His holiday packages were sold out too.

And of course he is still getting huge pops.

I will say it again I'm convinced that he can't draw and you are right about that but this is why you have no crediblity


*Rock's return Match does a underwhelming 160k buys in domestic*

Vintage *Rock316AE* response: _Blame the booking_

*Summerslam does 180-200k domestic even after it being just centered around cena and punk And MITB gets 30k increase *

Vintage *Rock316AE* response: _Punk can't draw shit_


----------



## theundeniabletruth (Sep 14, 2011)

deatawaits said:


> read this if you have EYES.
> 
> 
> > Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter
> ...


THIS


----------



## -Extra- (Apr 5, 2010)

Rock316AE said:


> This, LOL @ Punk as the best merchandise seller, the guy is a one hit wonder, sold one shirt good and all the other items are way down the list, since 11/14 Rock's "Boots To Asses" shirt is the number 1 selling shirt, WWE confirmed that on their Twitter page, The Rock has 3 items in the top 10, even Austin has 2, and not even that, overall Orton is probably selling a lot more than him, he has way more selling items. Rock is the undisputed number 1, Cena is probably 2 and then you got Austin, Orton Miz etc all selling good in many items, Punk is not even top 5. and just so you know, because all I see is Punk/indy fanboys going to the merchandise, Punk had just one good, bigger than normal month in August, that's it, July was down, September/October down, and November is probably up because of The Rock. funny to read all the clueless Punk marks in threads like that, just like one guy who was so desperate, he tried to compare Austin's huge title run in 98 and said that it took time because he was a failure, comedy, keep them coming on this level.


Vintage Rock316AE!


----------



## deatawaits (Sep 25, 2011)

deatawaits said:


> read this if you have EYES.
> 
> 
> > Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter
> ...


Vintage rock 316AE response:This and [email protected] some deluded rock marks thinking punk can't draw.


Wake up Vince cena's time is up push punk as he is a class act.He can draw.New top guy this WM.

Well just wanted to do it as we are not going to hear this from rock316AE


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Jul 23, 2011)

Fuck this! Finally there is some chance in the WWE and the fucking wwe "universe" ruins it!


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

Dave Meltzer = Horse Shit


----------



## rizzotherat (Oct 31, 2011)

Wsupden said:


> rajah.com
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this is just some bullshit report by Meltzer and not true.


It was never reported by him


----------



## rizzotherat (Oct 31, 2011)

zkorejo said:


> Dave Meltzer = Horse Shit


He didnt report it


----------



## rizzotherat (Oct 31, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> OP where did you get this info? I'm at the F4W site and I don't see anything....


Thank you.

Made up reports using that site as a source appear every couple of days here


----------



## rizzotherat (Oct 31, 2011)

Deebow said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Didn't f4wonline.com also report that Christian's return feud was going to be with Bryan over the MITB briefcase?


They didnt that was made up and falsely attributed too


----------



## Doublemint (Dec 24, 2011)

deatawaits said:


> read this if you have EYES.
> 
> 
> And please explain how that was just normal.I will say I agree that Punk isn't a draw but if you simply ignore the fact that he is actually selling merch is pathetic.this guy's shirts are most visible in the crowd and His T shirt was still the best seller and no 1 even after cena's new shirt and 6 fucking months.His holiday packages were sold out too.
> ...


Just curious, may I know where you get all theses statistics? Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood you, but I do some research on wikipedia and it says Survivor Series 2011 buyrate was 322,000, up from last year's event which received 244,000 buys while this year Summerslam has 296,000 pay-per-view buys, down from 350,000 buys the previous year.


----------



## deatawaits (Sep 25, 2011)

Rock316AE shoots on this forum


Wrestling forum members while you face the wrath of hypocrisy of a trolling legend,I want you to listen to me,I want you to digest this cause Before I get banned or some thing I have a lot things to get off my chest.I don't hate cm punk I don't even dislike him,I hate the fact that You people think that he is a human who can actually have opinion I hate the fact the members of this forum thinks that somebody can actually be entertaining without drawing.I am the best hypocrite in the world.

The fact in this matter remains that day in and day out I have proved that I am the best troll.Nobody could touch me not even bboy.
I realize that The rock is just a person in the world but the The WWE can't survive without the mercy of the great one.Hell I believe the show would be better with The E show casing the great one's dick for 2 hours.

The posts of anyone else is just a post ,my posts are lines written in stone.A tool by which I can preach the deluded members on this forum how The rock is the reason that you people are alive.










VINTAGE ROCK316AE
(WELL it was just my attempt at trolling)


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

> -- Daniel-Olivier Pepin sent this one along:


Like I said in the past, this was never in the Newsletter, and I know this because I read every one.
the only thing Meltzer wrote is "Punk claims that he sold more than Cena and it's probably true but even that was only in August which was a strong month but fell back in September" something like that, of course I don't remember word by word. Rock's match was one of the worst booking to a big match I have ever seen, and even that drew well, 180k domestic, 280-300k overall which is more 2009 and 2010 SVS, that's on The Rock's name alone without any help(they even did more damage). Punk with a hot angle did a very underwhelming buyrate, unlike SVS(people who knows what they are talking about, including me of course, predicted the exact number for the PPV)people were saying that this buyrate should be huge, and for SS? lol, they did the worst SS domestic number of all time. merchandise, like I said, one hit wonder, one shirt, after that shirt? lol, he would probably never be in the top 10 again. but if you realize that Punk is not a draw? than fine, at least you're reasonable and don't live in a bubble.


----------



## Mr Premium (Nov 15, 2011)

Doublemint said:


> Just curious, may I know where you get all theses statistics? Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood you, but I do some research on wikipedia and it says *Survivor Series 2011 buyrate was 322,000, up from last year's event which received 244,000 buys while this year Summerslam has 296,000 pay-per-view buys, down from 350,000 buys the previous year*.


And that's the official figure too from WWE.com.

Punk marks now resorting to revisionism.....fpalm

What's next? Punk actually drawing 4.0 in his segments/matches which was pulled down by the rest of the show's 2.0 rating?.......fpalm


----------



## deatawaits (Sep 25, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> Like I said in the past, this was never in the Newsletter, and I know this because I read every one.
> the only thing Meltzer wrote is "Punk claims that he sold more than Cena and it's probably true but even that was only in August which was a strong month but fell back in September" something like that, of course I don't remember word by word. Rock's match was one of the worst booking to a big match I have ever seen, and even that drew well, 180k domestic, 280-300k overall which is more 2009 and 2010 SVS, that's on The Rock's name alone without any help(they even did more damage). Punk with a hot angle did a very underwhelming buyrate, unlike SVS(people who knows what they are talking about, including me of course, predicted the exact number for the PPV)people were saying that this buyrate should be huge, and for SS? lol, they did the worst SS domestic number of all time. merchandise, like I said, one hit wonder, one shirt, after that shirt? lol, he would probably never be in the top 10 again. but if you realize that Punk is not a draw? than fine, at least you're reasonable and don't live in a bubble.


Ok discredit that report and you may be right.Yes you are right about SVS buyrates and personally I believe that number is incredible but it was indeed underwhelming when you consider it was the fucking rock's return match.He is the biggest and only true draw they have.Yes punk is not a ratings draw and is nowhere being one,yes punk's stock will fall down during RTWM.But I can't understand how you dismiss the fact that punk's shirt is most visible in the crowd nowadays and he is getting good pops.
I will actually appreciate a discussion


----------



## rizzotherat (Oct 31, 2011)

deatawaits said:


> Ok discredit that report and you may be right.


He isnt discrediting it.

Meltzer simply never reported it like 50% of the news that gets attributed to him that gets posted here.


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

I bet the ratings won't go up if they take the strap of Punk and keep him out of the main event. I hate when wrestling companies blame not having a draw for why their show(s) suck.


----------



## Art13 (Nov 5, 2010)

deatawaits said:


> I will actually appreciate a discussion


Good luck. He simply doesn't address Punk's pops and as for mech sales, well you've already seen the bullshit he came up with.... In Rock316AE land, Punk is behind the Miz in merchandise sales, yet apparently it is everyone else who is living in a bubble.


----------



## Nitromalta (Jul 27, 2011)

it's not punk fault its bryan fault no 1 wants to see that boring nerd on tv


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

The majority of the people are wearing black shirts, that's a known fact, WWE shirts or not. you can see Punk's white shirt or Cena's red shirt in the crowd easily because they stand out, simple. I gave Punk his credit when he deserves it, for his good shirt sales in August for example. pops? that's another difficult argument because you can clearly hear the difference between a smark crowd and a regular WWE crowd, the majority of his reactions are nothing special and a normal reaction for a babyface in this position. so you can't expect me or anyone else to give him credit for something like that, if you talk about "crazy, mega star over", then the last two were Orton in 2010 and Hardy in 2009.


----------



## deatawaits (Sep 25, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> The majority of the people are wearing black shirts, that's a known fact, WWE shirts or not. you can see Punk's white shirt or Cena's red shirt in the crowd easily because they stand out, simple. I gave Punk his credit when he deserves it, for his good shirt sales in August for example. pops? that's another difficult argument because you can clearly hear the difference between a smark crowd and a regular WWE crowd, the majority of his reactions are nothing special and a normal reaction for a babyface in this position. so you can't expect me or anyone else to give him credit for something like that, if you talk about "crazy, mega star over", then the last two were Orton in 2010 and Hardy in 2009.


Well you are not that worse as people make you out to be(myself including).
As for the colours that may be a theory it clarifies that there may be huge amount of cena's and orton's merch but even then that doesn't dismiss the fact that there are Punk's shirt in the crowd and in a good numbers.Well moving on to pops.His reaction isn't that great and it is true.But it's not like the crowd is quiet during his segments like he is ADR and his pops are 3rd or 2nd biggest during raws.But his reactions stand out to me because of the fact that he was a heel during his feuds with Cena and HHH.Two of the most over faces and then he was in a poorly booked feud against ADR who couldn't get heat to save his life.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

Rock316AE said:


> The majority of the people are wearing black shirts, that's a known fact, WWE shirts or not. you can see Punk's white shirt or Cena's red shirt in the crowd easily because they stand out, simple. I gave Punk his credit when he deserves it, for his good shirt sales in August for example. pops? that's another difficult argument because you can clearly hear the difference between a smark crowd and a regular WWE crowd, the majority of his reactions are nothing special and a normal reaction for a babyface in this position. so you can't expect me or anyone else to give him credit for something like that, if you talk about "crazy, mega star over", then the last two were Orton in 2010 and Hardy in 2009.


I have to agree with you on the shirt deal. Every other top merch seller in the WWE wears a black shirt. Cena does it. Orton does it. Rock does it. Austin does it. Miz does it. You're far less likely to see fans wearing their gear because it all blends in under the black and red lighting.

Punk fans easily stand out because they're wearing white.


----------



## TheLadderMatch (Jul 25, 2011)

Of course WWE are thinking about taking the strap off him.

Look at the track record of WWE for the past 4-5 years, they have been hand-balling the World Titles in desperate attempts to create a buzz and create new stars.

It won't surprise me if Punk doesn't make it to Mania.


----------



## Duke Silver (Jan 24, 2005)

Stupid and disappointing. It takes time to build superstars, but people really should be tuning in for Punk because he's the first fresh main-eventer in at least five years (and he's doing a good job).


----------



## Apokolips (Nov 24, 2011)

Booking, Not one individual can affect ratings like that.


----------



## The Rock Forever (Dec 6, 2008)

*Sigh* wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## faceface (Dec 15, 2010)

TheLadderMatch said:


> It won't surprise me if Punk doesn't make it to Mania.


Hopefully the buzz surrounding Rock/Cena will pull enough people in who might catch some of Punk's work and take an interest. 

I think this is my biggest problem with the ridiculous mark wars we have to have every day. If we could stop looking at everything competitively and see things in a more cohesive way, we might be able to understand just how effective SOME of the WWE's booking can be. The Rock's return and his feud with Cena opened the door for Punk to make it to the top, but it's Punk's feud with Cena that initiated the character chances Cena is undergoing during his road to the match at Wrestlemania. 

This whole year has been better for those three men. It's a shame so few people are willing to recognize that.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Booking has been bass-ackwards for quite a while. Until they get their shit together and get some folks who actually know how to book a wrestling show (Oops, can't use the W word), it's going to be the same old shit. 

Not to mention attention spans aren't the same as they once were. I remember when Cena held the title for almost a year and people complained because it was boring. It's a double-edged sword really. People want to see someone hold the belt for a while to boost the impact of the title itself, but more than a month and people find him boring and demand a change.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Cena's 8 & 13 month title reigns resulted in a very profitable two years for the company.


----------



## Art13 (Nov 5, 2010)

Rock316AE said:


> The majority of the people are wearing black shirts, that's a known fact, WWE shirts or not. you can see Punk's white shirt or Cena's red shirt in the crowd easily because they stand out, simple. I gave Punk his credit when he deserves it, for his good shirt sales in August for example.


His shirt is still the number one seller, logic would suggest it's still selling well. On your earlier point about merch, Randy Orton doesn't currently have an item in the top 10, no current full time Superstar has more than one item in the top 10 and Punk's second highest selling item is only one place behind Cena's number two item, but he sells less than the at least 5 other wrestlers right, including the Miz?



Rock316AE said:


> pops? that's another difficult argument because you can clearly hear the difference between a smark crowd and a regular WWE crowd, the majority of his reactions are nothing special and a normal reaction for a babyface in this position. so you can't expect me or anyone else to give him credit for something like that, if you talk about "crazy, mega star over", then the last two were Orton in 2010 and Hardy in 2009.


Regardless of location, he is getting the second loudest reaction, based on purely positive reactions, he is number one.... But you won't give him credit for that? 

Oh by the way, the original report is completely false. It is credited to rajah.com, who credit it F4W, but there is no sign of any such report on that website. So [email protected] all the Punk haters getting their hopes up.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Supporting Punk is like how you support a football team (soccer). Take Middlesbrough (a little club in England ) for example, they have supposedly thousands upon thousands of fans who support them, but only halve of them turn up for the actual match.

Get the point.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Wigan would have been a better example lol^^^

but your's is still good


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Cliffy Byro said:


> Wigan would have been a better example lol^^^
> 
> but your's is still good


HAHA true lol.

I only used them because I was there last year supporting my local LeicesterFC (come on you blues) and I swear, as away fans, a couple thousand, in a 34,000plus stadium, we had more fans than them. :lmao


----------



## alliance (Jul 10, 2010)

what if they moved punk to smackdown??

would u guys like that?


----------



## Fabregas (Jan 15, 2007)

TheF1BOB said:


> Supporting Punk is like how you support a football team (soccer). Take Middlesbrough (a little club in England ) for example, they have supposedly thousands upon thousands of fans who support them, but only halve of them turn up for the actual match.
> 
> Get the point.


Punk is a little bit like Newcastle actually, die hard fans who think their club is bigger than it actually is.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Fabregas said:


> Punk is a little bit like Newcastle actually, die hard fans who think their club is bigger than it actually is.


:lmao

Brilliant !!!


----------



## Green Light (Sep 17, 2011)

I just lost any respect I had for the both of your opinions


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Fabregas said:


> Punk is a little bit like Newcastle actually, die hard fans who think their club is bigger than it actually is.


TBF, there's a few you could into that category lol.

Liverpool (70/80s they were quality), Blackburn (you think they're best team in the world how their fans treat their manager :lmao) and ManUtd (you think they created football on how fans treat them lol).


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Green Light said:


> I just lost any respect I had for the both of your opinions


TBF you guys have all the tools to be one of the biggest clubs in europe.

Its just your owner is a complete clown.


----------



## Rock316AE (Aug 12, 2011)

alliance said:


> what if they moved punk to smackdown??
> 
> would u guys like that?


That's probably what's going to happen, Orton is not going to be on the B show for one more year(also going to win the Rumble), he had a great run on SD but they need him desperately on RAW as a real character, not in meaningless matches, I hope they send Punk to SD, would be better for everybody, I would like to see Henry on RAW, so Orton and Henry, Punk to SD. awesome deal, bring Christian to RAW with them? and I don't need to watch SD at all.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

TheF1BOB said:


> TBF, there's a few you could into that category lol.
> 
> Liverpool (70/80s they were quality), Blackburn (you think they're best team in the world how their fans treat their manager :lmao) and ManUtd (you think they created football on how fans treat them lol).


Or any london team lol.

They think they're the shit just because they're from laaaaandaaaan.

Kinda reflects some of the talent in wwe.


----------



## Fanboi101 (Jul 15, 2011)

CM Punk is probably listening to this on a loop right now

http://youtu.be/NoBFhdeR9PE


----------



## APEX (May 26, 2011)

All this ratings talk pisses me off.
People won't suddenly stop watching the WWE because of the champion, and if they do, they arent real fans anyway.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

Fanboi101 said:


> CM Punk is probably listening to this on a loop right now
> 
> http://youtu.be/NoBFhdeR9PE


:lmao


----------



## Castor Troy (Jul 17, 2011)

Fabregas said:


> Punk is a little bit like Newcastle actually, die hard fans who think their club is bigger than it actually is.


im a punk fan and a newcastle fan and let me tell you, punk has won things therefore the comparison is minimal !!!

shelton benjamin = newcastle 

i love em both, but neither have won shit


----------



## Green Light (Sep 17, 2011)

Castor Troy said:


> im a punk fan and a newcastle fan and let me tell you, punk has won things therefore the comparison is minimal !!!
> 
> shelton benjamin = newcastle
> 
> i love em both, but neither have won shit


TBF We won the Intertoto cup in 2006 and the Championship in 2010


----------



## Marv95 (Mar 9, 2011)

Yes it's Meltzer and yes it's a dirtsheet but keep in mind there's plenty of time between now and the Rumble to do something like a title change.

On that note how hilarious(or effed up) would it be for Punk to drop the belt in Chicago on Monday?


----------



## D17 (Sep 28, 2010)

Didn't they take the title off Del Rio straight away because of poor ratings?

Hopefully ~ Kane new champ it is, then. If the report is true of course.


----------



## D17 (Sep 28, 2010)

The Rebel said:


> All this ratings talk pisses me off.
> People won't suddenly stop watching the WWE because of the champion, and if they do, they arent real fans anyway.


Well...isn't the name of the game to keep the fans, and then try and get more fans involved with the product so that means better ratings, more exposure, more money brought in etc. Something somebody is doing right. However to be fair to him, he's had the belt what...a month? Give it time atleast...


----------



## Choke2Death (Jul 26, 2011)

D17 said:


> Didn't they take the title off Del Rio straight away because of poor ratings?
> 
> Hopefully ~ Kane new champ it is, then. If the report is true of course.


And yet they gave back the title to Del Rio two weeks later. What a joke.


----------



## Fabregas (Jan 15, 2007)

Green Light said:


> I just lost any respect I had for the both of your opinions


lol I see your avatar all the time and for some reason I never twigged that you were NUFC supporter.

Nothing personal.


----------



## Nomad (May 19, 2005)

The problem is that lack of credible heels for him to go against. Nobody has that something special that puts them up there with him. He has no-one to be the Savage to his Hogan, the Rock to his Austin, the Triple H to his Batista, the Edge to his Cena and so on. If the fans are ambivilent towards the heels, the face will suffer because their feuds won't be bought into. Miz is the most unconvincing bad-ass ever, Del Rio got boring about a year ago and while Ziggler is talented, most of his heat comes from Vickie.


----------



## Smackdownfan777 (Oct 28, 2009)

The vanilla midget cm phillip can't draw, something I've been saying all along. He is overrated, and the ratings show nobody gives a frank about him. 

p.s. Laughing at the punk marks defending the midget for the drop in ratings.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jun 28, 2011)

Choke2Death said:


> And yet they gave back the title to Del Rio two weeks later. What a joke.


Thank the Mexican Tour for that. In other words, he should never of lost it in the first place.


----------



## Scott Button (Aug 4, 2011)

You need better heels for him to face,


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Why is everybody blaming _"who he's working with"_ or _"the material he's given"_. Are you kidding me!?!?

Just lameass excuses. Punk buries everyone in front of their eyes. Let the others say what they want, Punk will be expose further more. Funny, both Nash and HHH made him look like a idiot, same with Cena. Miz would too but nnooooo... he's just a second thought to the Indie God. fpalm


----------



## diorama (Feb 4, 2009)

If anything, don't you think this situation is more of the incentive to turn Cena heel? They now get a big heel for Punk to overcome, new storyline, and new buzzes for fans to follow.


----------



## Leechmaster (Jan 25, 2009)

rcc said:


> For the millionth time CM Punk marks, Nielsen is a great system. A system that has an amazing sample, with every possible household demographic covered. With a sample size that is not only statically significant, but has a minuscule standard error. A system that advertisers obsess over, that TV networks obsess over. A system that needs to be completely accurate so that advertising dollars go to the right place. A system that has been proven to be accurate from years of advertising investment (it would've been ditched by now if it didn't work wouldn't it).
> 
> So to respond to your point, yes I know how ratings are measured. The question is, do you know how it's measured or did Eric Bischoff tell you Nielsen sucked and you believed him?


Lol @ this.

I work and study in the field of advertising...you do know that this data can easily be manipulated by a five year old messing around with the remotes that accompany the Nielson box, right?

I'm not speaking as a "Punk mark"; rather, I'm someone who has the knowledge/background of media buying and advetising metrics...try again, junior.


----------



## CaptainCharisma (Aug 9, 2011)

CM Punk makes money for WWE through merch + gets great reaction = CM Punk stays champ. 

I still don't understand how ratings matter. It's not like people pay WWE to see it on TV. 
# of people going to the show should matter more.



Scott Button said:


> You need better heels for him to face,


AGREED. WWE needs to stop making heels look like coward shit.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Rock316AE said:


> Like I said in the past, this was never in the Newsletter, and I know this because I read every one.
> the only thing Meltzer wrote is "Punk claims that he sold more than Cena and it's probably true but even that was only in August which was a strong month but fell back in September" something like that, of course I don't remember word by word. Rock's match was one of the worst booking to a big match I have ever seen, and even that drew well, 180k domestic, 280-300k overall which is more 2009 and 2010 SVS, that's on The Rock's name alone without any help(they even did more damage). Punk with a hot angle did a very underwhelming buyrate, unlike SVS(people who knows what they are talking about, including me of course, predicted the exact number for the PPV)people were saying that this buyrate should be huge, and for SS? lol, they did the worst SS domestic number of all time. merchandise, like I said, one hit wonder, one shirt, after that shirt? lol, he would probably never be in the top 10 again. but if you realize that Punk is not a draw? than fine, at least you're reasonable and don't live in a bubble.


Again how can you keep blaming the booking for Rocks disappointing buyrate(160k domestic by the way check the observer radio today) and then make Punk seem like he is the sole reason for the current low numbers.

You can't be that thick headed or damn ignorant. I know most see you as a troll or annoying rock mark, but seriously I thought you where more sensible than that.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Scott Button said:


> You need better heels for him to face,


WWE could really use Bobby Roode about now. He's the best thing going on in all of wrestling in my opinion.


----------



## Leechmaster (Jan 25, 2009)

Xiphias said:


> Can someone explain to me how ratings are affected by who is the current champion in WWE's game of musical chairs?
> 
> Are fans really such fickle whiny bitches?


These are the same troglodytes who complain about PPV buys going down when they stuff their fat faces steaming PPVs and spamming the threads asking for working feeds.

This forum is just getting worse by the day...hundreds of mindless sheep thinking they have business sense.


----------



## Leechmaster (Jan 25, 2009)

kokepepsi said:


> Again how can you keep blaming the booking for Rocks disappointing buyrate(160k domestic by the way check the observer radio today) and then make Punk seem like he is the sole reason for the current low numbers.
> 
> You can't be that thick headed or damn ignorant. I know most see you as a troll or annoying rock mark, but seriously I thought you where more sensible than that.


Spot on.

There's no logic to most of these arguments, especially when people are using double standards to protect the Rock/bash Punk. Absolutely stunning how thick-headed people are...makes me weep for the current state of the human race.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

kokepepsi said:


> Again how can you keep blaming the booking for Rocks disappointing buyrate(160k domestic by the way check the observer radio today) and then make Punk seem like he is the sole reason for the current low numbers.
> 
> You can't be that thick headed or damn ignorant. I know most see you as a troll or annoying rock mark, but seriously I thought you where more sensible than that.


What is your problem man.

Survivor Series did 180,000 domestic buys.. DOMESTIC BUYS..JUST IN NORTH AMERICA. 

The whole MITB did 195,000 (that's including domestic AND worldwide).

Don't know what you're trying to get at here??? I really don't


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

TheF1BOB said:


> What is your problem man.
> 
> Survivor Series did 180,000 domestic buys.. DOMESTIC BUYS..JUST IN NORTH AMERICA.
> 
> ...


Meltzer On the observer radio show today just said that Survivor Series did 160k domestic. (dude I even showed you the documents on how to get this number)

Meltzer then said that MITB numbers have gone up to 144k domestic buys.

Rock only drew 16k more buys than Punk.:mark:


----------



## Brave Nash (Jul 16, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Yeah thats true but i was stating the quality of the world tittle is reaching ecw tittle level.





TheF1BOB said:


> Why is everybody blaming _"who he's working with"_ or _"the material he's given"_. Are you kidding me!?!?
> 
> Just lameass excuses. Punk buries everyone in front of their eyes. Let the others say what they want, Punk will be expose further more. Funny, both Nash and HHH made him look like a idiot, same with Cena. Miz would too but nnooooo... he's just a second thought to the Indie God. fpalm


Do you know why you think that he buried wrestlers because they can't respond for shit it's just that punk is above there level.
So despise in what you just said the fact is that there were 5 other wrestlers that maybe people don't give a shit about so why don't you 
Wait for a one on one match and if the ratings were terrible you can blame him but for now I don't think he's the problem.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.

It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

kokepepsi said:


> Meltzer On the observer radio show today just said that Survivor Series did 160k domestic. (dude I even showed you the documents on how to get this number)
> 
> Meltzer then said that MITB numbers have gone up to 144k domestic buys.
> 
> Rock only drew 16k more buys than Punk.:mark:


Fair enough mate, I don't really listen to him lol

But if the MITB numbers have gone up, so will Survivor Series.

Give it a few months you see.


----------



## jonoaries (Mar 7, 2011)

Brye said:


> Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.
> 
> It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


You too huh?


----------



## D17 (Sep 28, 2010)

Brye said:


> Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.
> 
> It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


Just a cheap way to degrade wrestlers they don't like.


----------



## Green Light (Sep 17, 2011)

kokepepsi said:


> Meltzer On the observer radio show today just said that Survivor Series did 160k domestic. (dude I even showed you the documents on how to get this number)
> 
> Meltzer then said that MITB numbers have gone up to 144k domestic buys.
> 
> Rock only drew 16k more buys than Punk.:mark:


You make it sound like Punk drew on his name alone which obviously isn't true, MITB did well because it had a great storyline going into it and people were excited to see what happened. SS drew on the Rock's name alone, let's not turn this into another dick measuring contest


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

kokepepsi said:


> Meltzer On the observer radio show today just said that Survivor Series did 160k domestic. (dude I even showed you the documents on how to get this number)
> 
> Meltzer then said that MITB numbers have gone up to 144k domestic buys.
> 
> Rock only drew 16k more buys than Punk.:mark:


160K is 33K more than Survivor Series did last year, and like the other guy mentioned MITB's numbers have increased because of after buys. Survivor Series will get a boost too.

That's like comparing a movies sales that's been out for 6 months compared to one that's been out for 1.

Anyways it's not July anymore and Punk's gotta show that he's got substaining power. Lowest ratings since 1997 says what.


----------



## muttgeiger (Feb 16, 2004)

I want punk to succeed and think it is more of a reflection of peoples overall disinterest in wrestling, than him specifically. BUT- holy hell is there a lot of excuse-making in this thread.


----------



## Rocky541 (Nov 29, 2011)

I have been saying this for last couple of weeks and people have been calling me a troll. Hopefully Punk marks will finally shut-up about the ratings dropping having nothing to do with Punk.


----------



## D17 (Sep 28, 2010)

Leechmaster said:


> If they consider Punk, a 5-time world champion and and a man who has been on fire since July (*both in terms of actually getting non-wrestling fans to care about the WWE again *and killing it in merch sales) "unproven" and "an experiment", then the powers that be are as delusional and vacuous as you are.


Nice riddle.
The numbers would be rising in that case, not dropping.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Brye said:


> Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.
> 
> It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


Green Rep For you!


----------



## BreakTheWallsDown2 (Sep 5, 2009)

Hey here's an idea on how to boost ratings. STOP MAKING THE MAIN EVENT OF RAW A 6 MAN TAG TEAM MATCH WITH CHARACTERS FROM DIFFERENT STORY LINES!! No one cares about the 3 heels vs 3 faces bullcrap they try to feed us every week. Hell, I tuned out too. I knew it would just end with nothing exciting happening and the faces winning so whats the point of watching what I already know will happen? Make an interesting main event and itll draw higher ratings, dont blame the characters if you stick them in the same crap over and over again. I guarantee if it was CM Punk vs Del Rio and Miz in a handicap match more people would have tuned in. Some other interesting main events

Miz vs Del Rio for #1 contender with Punk as the special ref
Laurinitis puts Punk in a gauntlet match


There are tons of other ideas, which is why I find it more surprising why RAW sticks us with these non storyline progressing, bullshit tag team matches. No one wants to see them unless they are an established tag team.


----------



## PunkDrunk (Jul 23, 2011)

Brye said:


> Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.
> 
> It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


seeing how wwe are rumoured to be stripping the title off punk due to ratings, you should be worried about the stats if you enjoy punk etc at the top


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

"I like this wrestler!"

Ratings come out and they are not good:

"That wrestler is terrible. Get him off my TV!"


And look like the typical dirtsheet report. Punk isnt dropping the title until atleast EC, thats guranteed.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Brye said:


> Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.
> 
> It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


I'm sick of the IWC trying to push boring personalities onto everyone else. IWC: His matches are awesome, and his mic work was great in ROH. Don't care wrestling is alot more than who performs the most reallistic suplex, and I don't give a sh*t what anyone did in the minors.

When the guy develops an entertaining on screen personality then demand his push, because then the ratings will be there.


----------



## Rocky541 (Nov 29, 2011)

Brye said:


> Can't we just be fans of wrestling? Seriously.
> 
> It's like you people don't even care what happens on TV and you only care about what the numbers are and that makes me sick as an actual wrestling fan.


The fact that no one watches the main event effects what happens on TV. Its telling you that no one cares about it. You may like it, but its the majority's opinion that counts.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

Rocky541 said:


> The fact that no one watches the main event effects what happens on TV. Its telling you that no one cares about it. You may like it, *but its the majority's opinion that counts.*


And the majority watched the ME.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

PunkDrunk said:


> seeing how wwe are rumoured to be stripping the title off punk due to ratings, you should be worried about the stats if you enjoy punk etc at the top


The same dirtsheets that said Christian was going to feud with Daniel Bryan for the MITB case. Still waiting on that one.



> I'm sick of the IWC trying to push boring personalities onto everyone else. IWC: His matches are awesome, and his mic work was great in ROH. Don't care wrestling is alot more than who performs the most reallistic suplex, and I don't give a sh*t what anyone did in the minors.
> 
> When the guy develops an entertaining on screen personality then demand his push, because then the ratings will be there.


How do you know the ratings will be there? Shawn Michaels, in my eyes, is the best wrestler of all time and wasn't what you would call a 'draw'. Punk is a great wrestler with a great character. Daniel Bryan has the ability to do so and even if you don't give a shit about ROH, it still happened and he was awesome there.

Could the writing be better? Sure. But people need to calm the fuck down and stop critiquing everything that happens because honestly I don't understand how some of you even watch this company. I know you 'hope' it gets better but ffs it's never going to happen with the mindset you people have.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Rocky541 said:


> The fact that no one watches the main event effects what happens on TV. Its telling you that no one cares about it. You may like it, but its the majority's opinion that counts.


That's what people here fail to understand. Casuals just turn the product off. IWC complains on a message board.

When ratings suck like they did on Monday that's the viewing audience saying loud and clear we're not enjoying this storyline.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

Rocky541 said:


> The fact that no one watches the main event effects what happens on TV. Its telling you that no one cares about it. You may like it, but its the majority's opinion that counts.


And at the same time if you give these guys just a few weeks/months on top and expect everything to just magically shoot up, you're nuts. It takes fucking time for all of it to work and it takes good booking too. WWE's problem is that they see one drop in a rating and suddenly someone's push is gone and if that's the case, what are they gonna do when Cena and Orton retire?


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

I don't know. After what they did to Del Rio and Cena not really having anything to do, I would think that Vince would actually do this move.


----------



## Do Your Fcking Job (Feb 9, 2009)

LMAO what the hell are WWE going to do after WM when the Rock leaves and they are left with NOBODY who can draw ratings, PPV buys and bums on seats?

They really are in trouble unless they start to make some real main event stars.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Network is suppose to come out in 3 months and they don't have their shit together.
Vince might be too busy with the network startup to change stuff.
Bad news is that HHH/Steph will book, so yeah Mr.Burials and Mrs.Don't know shit about booking might fuck things up.

Next 3 months gonna be fun as hell. 
Can't wait.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Brye said:


> The same dirtsheets that said Christian was going to feud with Daniel Bryan for the MITB case. Still waiting on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that was actually the plan till henry got injured forcing vinces hand.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

GillbergReturns said:


> That's what people here fail to understand. Casuals just turn the product off. IWC complains on a message board.
> 
> When ratings suck like they did on Monday that's the viewing audience saying loud and clear we're not enjoying this storyline.


What I found hilarious was the lack reaction Punk got in Smark City.

The crowd saw pass his bullshit and didn't giva a fuck. Hell, the crowd was more into Ryder and Cena.


----------



## Monsoon4Ever (Aug 25, 2011)

My god, 46 pages on this? There are only four (4) things you need to know:

1) It's the holiday season and the paint's still wet on Punk's title. Patience.
2) Yes, the WWE should be very concerned about life post-WM28, because a lot of people are like me and have put up with a lot of the BS this year only because we're horses chasing the proverbial carrot of Wrestlemania 28.
3) WWE needs to listen to me and do a RATINGS split between the two shows, not a roster split. Let the wrestlers cross over whenever you like, just know that one context is TV-PG and the other is TV-14. Everybody wins.
4) They need to stop pushing the Divas down our throats and use the Diva roster money for tag teams.

Lord Monsoon4Ever has spoken. My will be done.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Monsoon4Ever said:


> My god, 46 pages on this? There are only four (4) things you need to know:
> 
> 1) It's the holiday season and the paint's still wet on Punk's title. Patience.
> 2) Yes, the WWE should be very concerned about life post-WM28, because a lot of people are like me and have put up with a lot of the BS this year only because we're horses chasing the proverbial carrot of Wrestlemania 28.
> ...


Nah only thing you need to know is that f4wonline never mentioned anything with "wwe officials thinking about taking the strap of punk becasue of the ratings"

LOL wtf is rajah.com


----------



## Green Light (Sep 17, 2011)

Like I said before this thread went completely off track, whoever wrote the supposed article probably read the ratings thread on this forum and made an article out of it. I'm not even joking either


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Brye said:


> And at the same time if you give these guys just a few weeks/months on top and expect everything to just magically shoot up, you're nuts. It takes fucking time for all of it to work and it takes good booking too. WWE's problem is that they see one drop in a rating and suddenly someone's push is gone and if that's the case, what are they gonna do when Cena and Orton retire?


We're not talking about spiking up we're talking about spiraling down. The ratings are plummeting and I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say the people who are leaving know who CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are etc. You have to be able to maintain status quo. 

The problem we're seeing is the WWE's pushing guys who aren't over because an internet fanbase is telling them to. Casuals aren't reacting to it. They're not going to look up what Bryan did in ROH and say wow he is talented.


----------



## Monsoon4Ever (Aug 25, 2011)

Green Light said:


> whoever wrote the supposed article probably read the ratings thread on this forum and made an article out of it. I'm not even joking either


Now that would be funny. I think that's known as a circlejerk if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Smoogle (Dec 20, 2008)

oh man I love this place the amount of funny signatures that i've been seeing have me rolling


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

So we've gone from "LOL WWE doesn't even know what WF is" to "WF is controlling the main event scene of the WWE"?


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Brye said:


> So we've gone from "LOL WWE doesn't even know what WF is" to "WF is controlling the main event scene of the WWE"?


Punk, Bryan, Ryder, Rhodes.
Hard to argue otherwise.

The Summer of Punk flipped everything around. When Cena gets ousted on the merchandise list WWE has to see what kind of a market is really there.

They might of went in too fast.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

GillbergReturns said:


> Punk, Bryan, Ryder, Rhodes.
> Hard to argue otherwise.
> 
> The Summer of Punk flipped everything around. When Cena gets ousted on the merchandise list WWE has to see what kind of a market is really there.
> ...


With Punk and Ryder it's hard to argue that the live audience doesn't play a huge factor into that. Ryder had a 30 second match with Cole that he managed to get a chant during after barely being on TV the entire year.


----------



## The$ecretWeapon (Mar 27, 2011)

Something tells me all these people with Punk in their sig would believe this report if it said something posititve about Punk.


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

The$ecretWeapon said:


> Something tells me all these people with Punk in their sig would believe this report if it said something posititve about Punk.


And something tells me that people who don't like Punk wouldn't believe the report if it was positive.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

The$ecretWeapon said:


> Something tells me all these people with Punk in their sig would believe this report if it said something posititve about Punk.


I am offended...


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Brye said:


> With Punk and Ryder it's hard to argue that the live audience doesn't play a huge factor into that. Ryder had a 30 second match with Cole that he managed to get a chant during after barely being on TV the entire year.


Punk yes I disagree about Ryder.

I don't think he was over with casuals. Hell there's no way he could have been because he was barely on TV to begin with. His push came from internet fans.

It's the problem I have with the new direction of the WWE. People are over with no booking whatsoever. It's basically WWE give this guy a belt.


----------



## TankOfRate (Feb 21, 2011)

GillbergReturns said:


> *People are over*


End of story, case closed, yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

GillbergReturns said:


> Punk yes I disagree about Ryder.
> 
> I don't think he was over with casuals. Hell there's no way he could have been because he was barely on TV to begin with. His push came from internet fans.
> 
> It's the problem I have with the new direction of the WWE. People are over with no booking whatsoever. It's basically WWE give this guy a belt.


He was barely on TV? He was on both shows, had the endorsement of both Punk and Cena, and fuck, he nearly had an entire episode a while back when Cena gave up his #1 contender-ship so Ryder could get a shot. Ryder has been getting pushed on TV for a while now.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

The$ecretWeapon said:


> Something tells me all these people with Punk in their sig would believe this report if it said something posititve about Punk.


We'll wait and see what happens but any smart posters takes these dirtsheet posts with a grain of salt. I hardly think you should group the people that are Punk fans together so ignorantly.


----------



## Jatt Kidd (Jan 28, 2004)

You can only plant so many "pipe bombs" before people get sick of it. Only so long you can try to be "cutting edge".


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

Leechmaster said:


> Lol @ this.
> 
> I work and study in the field of advertising...you do know that this data can easily be manipulated by a five year old messing around with the remotes that accompany the Nielson box, right?
> 
> I'm not speaking as a "Punk mark"; rather, I'm someone who has the knowledge/background of media buying and advetising metrics...try again, junior.


Then you would know that Nielsen has software that picks up on these manipulations and are removed from the data (at least that's what they do in Australia and I'm sure it's the same situation in the US).

Thanks, Junior.


----------



## will94 (Apr 23, 2003)

Meltzer never said they are thinking of taking the title off Punk. I listened to that podcast, he talked about the low ratings and who they'd blame it on, but nowhere in there discussed talks of Punk's reign being halted.

Protip for people -- if a "source" says it came from somewhere else, either go to that site and find if it's real, or don't post it because it's probably BS.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

Answer to this is simple if the ratings are that big of a deal.


JOHN CENA IS THE ONLY PERSON IN WWE THAT SHOULD EVER TOUCH THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP


----------



## diorama (Feb 4, 2009)

The Hardcore Show said:


> Answer to this is simple if the ratings are that big of a deal.
> 
> 
> JOHN CENA IS THE ONLY PERSON IN WWE THAT SHOULD EVER TOUCH THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP


Oh God you're right! If John Cena (God forbid) suddenly suffer a career-ending injury he might as well retire with the title! What a brilliant idea!


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

The Hardcore Show said:


> Answer to this is simple if the ratings are that big of a deal.
> 
> 
> JOHN CENA IS THE ONLY PERSON IN WWE THAT SHOULD EVER TOUCH THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP


Cena should consistently be involved in the title feud imo.


----------



## Brave Nash (Jul 16, 2011)

HHH is the GOAT said:


> Cena should consistently be involved in the title feud imo.


:no: Why do you like Cena what's good about him?


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

HHH is the GOAT said:


> Cena should consistently be involved in the title feud imo.


Has he not for the past 6 years?


----------



## The$ecretWeapon (Mar 27, 2011)

Brye said:


> We'll wait and see what happens but any smart posters takes these dirtsheet posts with a grain of salt. I hardly think you should group the people that are Punk fans together so ignorantly.


They should be taken with a grain of salt, yes, but the reality is this guy's been a big deal since July and not much has changed, if anything it's got worse, the only thing I can say that has truly changed is the US and IC titles have been featured more, and Punk most likely didn't have anything to do with that.

Now the ratings are in the 2's, that's not good for Raw. If things don't get better in the next few weeks with no more MNF, the WWE will be justified in dropping Punk and putting him back in the mid-card where he was. I'm not saying go to Cena, but if Raw stays in the high 2's, low 3's something will have to happen. The WWE can only stay stagnant for so long before people get fed up with them just putting on shows, they may not have legit competition because in reality TNA is nothing more than part of an amusement park but eventually people will get fed up, that or the numbers will continue to go down until they have to react.


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

Brave Nash said:


> :no: Why do you like Cena what's good about him?


I dont. But Cena is the face of the company no matter if you like him or not. The fact that he wasnt on the TLC pay per view and was barely given 15 mins on Raw, Im not surprised that the ratings are down.


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

Brye said:


> Has he not for the past 6 years?


and there should be no reason for this to stop.


----------



## Chr1st0 (Jun 18, 2011)

Is it just me or are the ratings not pretty much the same?


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

You people are supposed to be wrestling fans, not fucking businessmen.

Good god.


----------



## Brave Nash (Jul 16, 2011)

Man people are judging ratings for one night the mainevent shouldn't be a mainevent. The match is predictable and not interesting 3 champs vs 3 losers whos gonna win well duh, JL is making poor matches from the beginning to the end of show.


----------



## Aficionado (Jul 16, 2008)

So if they stripped Punk's WWE Title and put it on someone like Kane or, God forbid, John Cena and had Punk in a mid-card feud with Ziggler and the ratings shot to a 2.9 or 3.0, that would make this all better?


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

Brye said:


> You people are supposed to be wrestling fans, not fucking businessmen.
> 
> Good god.


Well for me, the low rating supports my view that the current product is very mediocre. The poor crowd reactions is also helpful in this. You can look at the ratings from a fan's perspective.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

HHH is the GOAT said:


> Well for me, the low rating supports my view that the current product is very mediocre. The poor crowd reactions is also helpful in this.


I like to actually watch and form my own opinion and the crowd reactions haven't been poor.


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

Brye said:


> You people are supposed to be wrestling fans, not fucking businessmen.
> 
> Good god.


Yeah, it's stupid, but people do this because they're wrestling fans--or rather, because they hate certain wrestlers. People are going to hate wrestlers, whether that wrestler is Punk, Cena, Rock, etc, and they're going to use ratings to justify their position to their opposition with the idea that a "majority" of viewers agree with them, and that the wrestler in question shouldn't have his spot.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Punk dropping the title to Kane at Chi-town monday would probably be the best bet. I don't want it to happen but WWE's a business, they NEED good TV ratings and casuals are into the Kane Character.


----------



## Rayfain (Dec 5, 2011)

Around the holidays ratings are going to dip, they need to give things a chance instead of throwing the title around like they have been doing.


----------



## Brave Nash (Jul 16, 2011)

How will they make new stars if they stripped Punk's WWE Title and put it on someone else, so now people will count on Cena all the time for the ratings. Actually the only reason why Cena is a megastar is because of his extreme booking and advertising. Put Punk in the mid-card and who's gonna mainevent answer me?. Orton made a horrible rating in both shows, it's not about punk it's about who can mainevent. Miz is a mid carder, ADR needs time, Dolph didn't achieve anything yet, bryan didn't beat somebody credible yet to be a champion, and finally Ryder who in my opinion will never be a Maineventer.


----------



## Notrealz (Nov 25, 2011)

There is no point in keeping Punk as a champion if he dont draw viewers. If he needs time to become a draw, as you punk marks claim, then take him off the title scene first, put him in top feuds without the title or the title chase. 

Maybe he is not ready to carry the brand as a world champion imo.


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

JoseDRiveraTCR7 said:


> Yeah, it's stupid, but people do this because they're wrestling fans--or rather, because they hate certain wrestlers. People are going to hate wrestlers, whether that wrestler is Punk, Cena, Rock, etc, and they're going to use ratings to justify their position to their opposition with the idea that a "majority" of viewers agree with them, and that the wrestler in question shouldn't have his spot.


Yeah it's more or less a copout for people who can't argue logically themselves.


----------



## b824908 (Dec 24, 2011)

best thing to ever happen to cm punk . this is controversy and controversy creates cash. punk was getting to popular he had struggled and gotten to the top. what next? he needed a new mountain to climb and he has it.


----------



## Evolution (Sep 23, 2005)

HHH is the GOAT said:


> and there should be no reason for this to stop.


Except for him going from one of the most over faces ever to one of the most despised people in wrestling history while STILL being a face. There's that...


----------



## MidlifeCrisis (Aug 8, 2011)

How about we wait a few weeks and see if the rating change when the holidays are in the rear view mirror, and Monday Night Football is done for the season. As for the concern of losing advertising revenue with declining ratings, I don't think that'll be all that big of a problem in this case. The major advertisers during RAW would buy those time slots regardless of what's on at the time. Also, half of the advertising during the show is for WWE merchandise and movies. I don't think WWE will pull it's own commercials from it's broadcasts. There's also plenty of "local advertising" time reserved by broadcasters during the 2 hours. Those slots are filled by ads that don't go out to the national audience, and the amount paid for those slots is virtually inconsequential to WWE's revenue.


----------



## bigdog40 (Sep 8, 2004)

The old ratings thread, same shit every week. Look if WWE wants ratings so bad, they put PPV type main events every week on Raw, have special guest appearing on Raw, or advertise something in order to gain viewers no matter how shit the segment is going to be. The WWE right now is focusing less of the entertainment and situations that shock people which garnered high ratings, to a focus of the in ring product and the youth movement currently going on throughout the WWE.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

MidlifeCrisis said:


> How about we wait a few weeks and see if the rating change when the holidays are in the rear view mirror, and Monday Night Football is done for the season. As for the concern of losing advertising revenue with declining ratings, I don't think that'll be all that big of a problem in this case. The major advertisers during RAW would buy those time slots regardless of what's on at the time. Also, half of the advertising during the show is for WWE merchandise and movies. I don't think WWE will pull it's own commercials from it's broadcasts. There's also plenty of "local advertising" time reserved by broadcasters during the 2 hours. Those slots are filled by ads that don't go out to the national audience, and the amount paid for those slots is virtually inconsequential to WWE's revenue.


That's the way I see it.

Right now, we're in the middle of the holidays. Christmas is tomorrow, and we're a week away from New Year's Eve. WWE has an excuse for the below-average ratings we've seen in the past couple of weeks.

But if Raw is still drawing below-average ratings after January 2nd, then there's a major problem, and Punk will be fucked whether he is to blame or not. His title reign will be over by the Royal Rumble if this happens, mark my words.


----------



## Evolution (Sep 23, 2005)

Maybe it's because there isn't a single heel on the roster who has any credibility. Not one. That's not Punk's fault, it's the WWE's fault.


----------



## DFUSCMAN (Mar 13, 2010)

Every great face needs a great heel to work with.

the wwe's main problem for the past 2-3 years is that there is no top heel who is despised and is a proven draw against the top face.

All the heels in the wwe are not credible, except for mark henry and he lost the title and is in an injury angle.

The only truly credible heel right now is kane and he's going to get cheered no matter what.

There is nobody interesting to feud with, hell bryan has more interesting characters to feud with on smackdown because you have an underdog champion and 2 monsters are coming for his title.

Nobody is buying miz or del rio as destructive evil heels. Miz and Del Rio are the 2 top heels on raw and have been built like absolute crap.

It's because for some reason on raw the booking team only cares about the top faces.


----------



## DFUSCMAN (Mar 13, 2010)

Evolution said:


> Maybe it's because there isn't a single heel on the roster who has any credibility. Not one. That's not Punk's fault, it's the WWE's fault.


Kane's the only credible heel on raw, and kane doesn't look like a heel going against cena when he's getting a huge pop and cena's getting booed out of the building night in and night out....


----------



## Roler42 (Nov 9, 2010)

kinda funny how no one poins out that the match Randy orton had lost nearly a million viewers :lmao


----------



## Izual_Rebirth (Feb 20, 2010)

The problem is... people want to see Punk. They just don't want to see him in feuds with the likes of Del Rio and Miz.

Punk, great as he is, is still new to the main event scene. He's not good enough to carry the show, the title and draw fans on his own. He needs feuds with established stars. Punk can draw, but only when he's involved in big matches. People want to see him feuding with guys like Cena, HHH, Orton. Not guys like Del Rio and Miz. The fans want to get behind Punk but it's not going to happen in a stupid filler feud like the one he's currently in because there is little emotionally involvement and guys like Miz and Del Rio are just fucking pissants who aren't established heels for shit. Guys might as well be feuding for the IC or US title as far as I care.

It's still early days though and this time of year is always a bit slow on the feud front and full of crappy filler feuds. 

Having a few small feuds with Del Rio and Miz is ok as it gives him and the title some credibility if he manages to keep it. I can see why the ratings are going to suffer as a result though. Hopefully WWE accept that this is part of the process of getting someone new into the main event scene in current WWE. Thing is, moan I might about his current feuds but the issue is there just aren't enough established stars to have Punk feud with week in and week out. 

I'm still hoping Punk is going to get a big feud going into mania. He needs it so the fans can get behind him again and to give the title some more credibility. Thing is... this year mania is going to be all about Rock vs Cena. Which is unfortunate... because this is the year a guy like Punk could really do with the push instead. They wasted last year on Miz and Cena and to me it was premature to push a new guy like Miz because he wasn't ready. This year... the year when Punk really could do with it they waste it on Rock and Cena? It's a shame 

Not that I'm not looking forward to Rock and Cena. I am. It's just the timing sucks. Thing is Punk is just that good... stick him in a decent feud and I really wouldn't be surprised to see his feud take the limelight away from Cena and Rock.


----------



## Scrotey Loads (Nov 22, 2011)

IWC: "I haven't been this interested in the product in years!"

Ratings: Never been lower.

If this isn't a slap in the face as to just how little a percentage of the viewing audience we comprise, I don't know what is. As elated as we may be to see Punk/Ryder/Bryan at the forefront, roughly 75-90% of the audience is yawning.

Which shouldn't be a surprise because roughly 75-90% of people in the world aren't too damn bright and have pretty shitty taste. Face it. It's not a stereotype. Most wrestling fans are mouth-breathing ******** who will cheer when Vince's imaginary 'APPLAUSE' sign is lit. 

We're the fans intelligent enough to discuss it. A mark forum would be unintelligible. 'druugh i lakz jon seena hes da best i modle my lief atfer him!111"


----------



## Pasab (Feb 2, 2011)

Evolution said:


> Maybe it's because there isn't a single heel on the roster who has any credibility. Not one. That's not Punk's fault, it's the WWE's fault.


Remember the 9 consecutive PPV defeats of CM Punk before he win against Cena...


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

Well, we just have to see what happens in the next fortnight to get an idea where they're going with Punk.


----------



## Demandred (Jun 2, 2008)

Pasab said:


> Remember the 9 consecutive PPV defeats of CM Punk before he win against Cena...



Wasn't it 14 until he beat Rey Mysterio?


----------



## Pasab (Feb 2, 2011)

I forgot he beat Mysterio, sorry...


----------



## PunkDrunk (Jul 23, 2011)

Evolution said:


> Maybe it's because there isn't a single heel on the roster who has any credibility. Not one. That's not Punk's fault, it's the WWE's fault.


punk destroying their credibility on the mic doesnt help either.
orton, edge etc battled the same heels yet they never no sold their opponents on the mic
thats how its done


----------



## Pasab (Feb 2, 2011)

> Extreme Rules 2010 - 1st Mariner Arena; Baltimore, MD 4/25/10
> - Gauntlet Match: Show-Miz beat John Morrison & R-Truth by DQ; Show-Miz beat MVP & Mark Henry; The Hart Dynasty beat Show-Miz
> - CM Punk's Hair on the Line: *CM Punk beat Rey Mysterio*
> - Strap Match: JTG beat Shad Gaspard
> ...





> Royal Rumble 2011 - TD Garden; Boston, MA 1/30/11
> - World Heavyweight Championship: Champion Edge beat Dolph Ziggler
> - WWE Championship: Champion The Miz beat Randy Orton
> - Fatal 4-Way Match for the Divas Championship: Eve beat Champion Natalya, Michelle McCool, and Layla to win the title
> ...


From Extreme Rules 2010 when he beat Rey Mysterio to Capitol Punishment 2011, he lost 9 times.


----------



## Gingermadman (Feb 2, 2010)

GillbergReturns said:


> Punk yes I disagree about Ryder.
> 
> I don't think he was over with casuals. Hell there's no way he could have been because he was barely on TV to begin with. His push came from internet fans.
> 
> It's the problem I have with the new direction of the WWE. People are over with no booking whatsoever. It's basically WWE give this guy a belt.


4 Billion people on the internet.

I'd wager a few casuals have seen his show.

Fact is, 0 credible heels.

Cena is pissing everyone off.

Orton is a ratings black hole.

Punk is the only thing keeping it interesting right now and most people won't tune in to see one man unless he's Hogan, Austin or Rock.


----------



## Brave Nash (Jul 16, 2011)

PunkDrunk said:


> punk destroying their credibility on the mic doesnt help either.
> orton, edge etc battled the same heels yet they never no sold their opponents on the mic
> thats how its done


You think punk buries them but he doesn't they actually dont have shit in response thats why they dont develop, punk is just testing them 
and they miserably failed. Punk is just above them simple answer.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

I don't think calling someone boring is going to lead to any good


----------



## Ryu Hayabusa (Feb 1, 2011)

Give it time...


----------



## Cosmic Gate (Nov 2, 2011)

Punk has completely lost his edge and his little nerd stable celebration was cringe worthy, clearly the audience agrees with me as they tuned out in droves. Worst main event rating in 14 years LMAO. Punk should know better than to associate himself with that nerd D Bryan, he has no entertainment value whatsoever and completely bores the crap out of anyone who isn't a hardcore, fat, bearded indy fan.

Punk needs to get his balls back and ditch that nerd, drop some more pipe bombs and then hopefully ratings will go back up.

I hope Kevin Nash comes back for one last promo and match to heroically bury the vanilla midget Bryan


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Calling them nerds, losers, indy hacks, or internet darlings doesn't prove or help your baseless argument whatsoever.


----------



## animus (Feb 20, 2011)

I read the first 14 or so pages and didn't have the time to read all 52 pages lol. 

I would consider myself more of a casual even though I watched more wrestling these past 5-6 months than I have since around 99/2000. I'm intrigued by Punk, my first thought a few months ago was that we had our first chance of a megastar since Cena and Rock and so on. I do think Punk needs a megaheel to put him over. The problem is that as soon as a heel starts to get close to the level we need, he gets thrown into the midcard and never to be seen again for months; see Sheamus, Miz, and Barrett. Quite honestly, I see more of a future from Cody Rhodes than I do from Barrett. Personally, I think a change needs to happen sooner rather than later. But I'm not sure a Stable is the answer. I'd like to see the Brands totally go away forever; 1 champ for both shows and so on. That way Raw or Smackdown wouldn't suffer if a Orton or Cena was to turn heel.


----------



## Prince King (Jan 31, 2011)

To me Punk is a hypocrite. He always says people go out there and say the same thing everytime, well that's what Punk does do. I actually don't really give a F when he goes out there


----------



## Brave Nash (Jul 16, 2011)

Prince King said:


> To me Punk is a hypocrite. He always says people go out there and say the same thing everytime, well that's what Punk does do. I actually don't really give a F when he goes out there


Huh?


----------



## Romanista (Jul 13, 2011)

Cena wrestled the same heels and they can draw, stop using them as an excuse.


----------



## bjnelson19705 (Jul 14, 2008)

Wsupden said:


> Yeah, if it was Edge, Batista and John Cena vs. Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Randy Orton the ratings wouldn't be as low. It's more of an indication as to how the product is doing, not one single person.


This.


----------



## Roler42 (Nov 9, 2010)

how come no one has mentioned that the ratings started to drop with cena? :lmao


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

I love how people are blaming the writers for this. CM Punk gets plenty of air time, he gets in his little cheap pops, he gets to take shots at Johnny Ace every damn week, and he gets plenty of in ring time. With all that he's still not drawing as champion. CM Punk is not a draw. He's a great talent, but not a draw.


----------



## DJ2334 (Jan 18, 2011)

I blame the lack of credible heel.


----------



## just1988 (Jun 15, 2009)

Evolution said:


> WWE won't care about the ratings while he's making them a literal shit ton of money through merchandise. End of.


Well that's not true, if they kept the title on him for an extended period of time and let's say for arguments sake that the ratings continue to slip or stay at this lower level then Raw wont be able to command as much money through advertising which will lose them a hell of a lot more money than CM Punk is making on merch.

That being said, from what I've heard about the WWE creative process, they consider a hell of a lot of stuff so just because this is one thing that they've considered is in no means an indication that it will happen. This news story has most likely just been written because it's believable and doesn't really give us any information either way.


----------



## Snothlisberger (Sep 26, 2011)

What a Godforsaken thread. Why do people even bother? "Maybe this time I'll convince the other guy to change his mind." So stupid. Its like hamsters running on a wheel.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Brye said:


> Yeah it's more or less a copout for people who can't argue logically themselves.


This is no more logical than me saying Punk's merchandise sales means nothing. If ratings means nothing neither does merchandise sales. 

The funny thing is for group that pretends to be fact driven you got nothing but worthless emotional sentiment to back your arguments up.

All you can say is we enjoyed the product and that's all that matters. Give it time.


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

Whether or not CM Punk can draw in real life remains to be seen.

But he is a draw on this forum. That's for sure.


----------



## TheF1BOB (Aug 12, 2011)

BlakeGriffinFan32 said:


> Whether or not CM Punk can draw in real life remains to be seen.
> 
> But he is a draw on this forum. That's for sure.


He's a bloody good talking point, that's for saw.

Honourable Mentions - John Cena and The Failure


----------



## Camoron (Aug 24, 2004)

- Gets voted Superstar of the Year by the fans.
- Gets the loudest pop (not necessarily loudest reaction, Cena probably still takes that) of anyone on the roster.
- People wearing CM Punk shirts everywhere.

- Somehow gets low ratings.

What gives?

As an aside, he simply hasn't been in the "top star" position long enough to be judged on ratings. This is like two weeks in a row that his segments have underperformed in terms of ratings, right? Are all you Rock marks (apparently the only ones on this board that hate CM Punk) so quick to pass judgment?


----------



## Brye (Jan 28, 2006)

GillbergReturns said:


> This is no more logical than me saying Punk's merchandise sales means nothing. If ratings means nothing neither does merchandise sales.
> 
> The funny thing is for group that pretends to be fact driven you got nothing but worthless emotional sentiment to back your arguments up.
> 
> All *you can say is we enjoyed the product* and that's all that matters. Give it time.


Isn't that the point of watching the show?


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Brye said:


> Isn't that the point of watching the show?


This... I only care about the other stuff in any fashion simply because I like to understand the thought process behind the scenes sometimes. I just like peering behind the curtain


----------



## BlakeGriffinFan32 (Aug 18, 2011)

It doesn't matter to me if this past Monday did a TNA rating, I loved it. 

Even if Hornswoggle running through the crowd in the stands around the arena drew a higher rating than This is Your Life, I would've called it stupid.


----------



## wwffans123 (Feb 13, 2009)

http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/iV9PUTChCPI/default.jpg


----------



## Camoron (Aug 24, 2004)

wwffans123 said:


> http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/iV9PUTChCPI/default.jpg


Fantastic post. I agree completely.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Ratings are only used to make a biased argument for or against a certain wrestler or wrestlers and to aid their agenda.

Otherwise, ratings shouldn't mean shit to a true wrestling fan.


----------



## jonoaries (Mar 7, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Ratings are only used to make a biased argument for or against a certain wrestler or wrestlers and to aid their agenda.
> 
> Otherwise, ratings shouldn't mean shit to a true wrestling fan.


Exactly. I say "Hogan sucks", they say "Well Hogan was the biggest draw ever, so your wrong!" Smh..change the name from "Hogan" to anyone else and that's 75% of the IWCs arguments


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Brye said:


> Isn't that the point of watching the show?


Yeah and people that don't like the show turn it off.

Do you see the problem? You got 600,000 fans that you normally get turning the product off.


----------



## GillbergReturns (Aug 9, 2011)

Winning™;10786679 said:


> Ratings are only used to make a biased argument for or against a certain wrestler or wrestlers and to aid their agenda.
> 
> Otherwise, ratings shouldn't mean shit to a true wrestling fan.


Ratings reflect popularity and guess what wrestling is fake. The most over, marketable, profitable person is the guy who gets the push. The guy who more often than not wins the feud.

You want to pretend ratings don't matter you're watching something entirely different than professional wrestling.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Camoron said:


> - *Gets voted Superstar of the Year by the fans.*
> - Gets the loudest pop (not necessarily loudest reaction, Cena probably still takes that) of anyone on the roster.
> - People wearing CM Punk shirts everywhere.
> 
> ...


fpalm

The slammys are as riged as peoples choice night. Why do you think cena usually wins it. Its good sign though that they want to push punk. So truly punk has to take some responsibility.


----------



## Loudness (Nov 14, 2011)

I don't get 95% of the comments here as they overlook the simplest of things. Since ratings are so incredibly important, why is a company that did lower ratings than TNA beeing considered much bigger than WWE right now, I'm speaking of UFC. Paying fans = more important than a huge number of channel surfers. I'd rather run a show with 1.0 Ratings with huges filled arenas and every fans wearing WWE merch than a company with 5.0s that doesn't sell half the tickets and has few people with WWE merch (TNA "It's all abou the ratings" Style).


----------



## NoLeafClover (Oct 23, 2009)

First of all, there were 5 other people in that tag match with him on Raw, so honestly he can't be fully blamed. Second of all, they have to give this reign with Punk time and let it be a reign that defines him at the main event level. Much like they did with Cena or even Miz...they need to keep the strap on him for a while and firmly solidify his spot as one of the top guys for years to come. 

And with the looming possibility of Cena turning heel within the next 5-6 months, they need to cement Punk as the top babyface...which I think can definitely be done - it just down to one thing. Commitment.


----------



## Demandred (Jun 2, 2008)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> *The slammys are as riged as peoples choice night.* Why do you think cena usually wins it. Its good sign though that they want to push punk. So truly punk has to take some responsibility.




Which isn't rigged at all...the choices might have been skewed a bit, because honestly who is going to vote for Del Rio over Punk? But it is legit.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

TMPRKO said:


> *Which isn't rigged at all*...the choices might have been skewed a bit, because honestly who is going to vote for Del Rio over Punk? But it is legit.




You recall the mason ryan,evan bourne,sin cara incident and you say its not riged.

The 2009 one was rigged as hell to give cena momentum after losing to the belt to sheamus the night before.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

I recall someone saying, "Making New Stars is More Important than 3.2's". I completely agree, Cena is going to be 35 soon and is eventually going to have to retire/work a lighter schedule.  They need to groom these guys for the future NOW. Ride the Punk train for now and if it continues to get worse then remove the belt off of him.


----------



## Demolition119 (Mar 1, 2011)

CM Punk isn't that much younger then Cena


----------



## deadmanwatching (Dec 14, 2011)

punk is 33 and cena is 35 

Not a big Age difference


----------



## Scrotey Loads (Nov 22, 2011)

Roler42 said:


> how come no one has mentioned that the ratings started to drop with cena? :lmao


Cena:Bush:unk:Obama - People are too stupid to look into anything and would rather point their fingers at the person right in front of them.

Also, to people saying "give it time": Good advice, but remember, this is WWE, where a risk hasn't been taken since, what? 2004?


----------



## seleucid23 (Mar 11, 2008)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> You recall the mason ryan,evan bourne,sin cara incident and you say its not riged.
> 
> The 2009 one was rigged as hell to give cena momentum after losing to the belt to sheamus the night before.


If anything, the Mason Ryan/Sin Cara incident was proof that they aren't rigged (or riged as you call it). Everyone, including Evan, was expecting Sin Cara to come out, and looked shocked when Ryan won.


----------



## kiss the stick (Sep 6, 2009)

godamn shame if true, but i wouldnt put it past vince and co


----------



## Neil_totally (Jul 31, 2011)

Nah, ratings dropped due to the 'Teddy Long Affect': A bunch of wrestlers argue at the start of the show, the GM turns up and announces a tag match that no one cares about. This is why everyone hates Teddy Long, and is by far the worst thing about Smackdown, and now Raw.


----------



## Simply Flawless (Mar 28, 2011)

Its also the holiday season people would rather get rat arsed than stay at home to watch Raw.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

This could actually jeopardise a potential cena heel turn.


----------



## sesshomaru (Dec 11, 2006)

Cliffy Byro said:


> This could actually jeopardise a potential cena heel turn.


Yes, if Punk is meant to take Cena's place. Though expecting him to do that after only 6 months is a bit premature


A Cena heel turn will lose merch sales but will create ratings and buzz for the product. It's a risk, and we'll find out if Vince is willing to take it.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Jul 23, 2011)

I don't know what your problem is but I enyojed the show.


----------



## 666_The_Game_666 (Nov 18, 2009)

this company has no faith in anyone but Cena. They have all these plans for Punk to be the guy which may lead to the Cena heel turn but cos the ratings are bad they will end up putting the belt on Cena again. Maybe they should consider how bad the show is due to the writting and the rewrites Vince does before the show.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

For what it's worth I've not seen this reported anywhere else. (I'm not gonna skim through every page to check.)

This would be horseshit and a terrible way to abandon pushing new stars. it better be a false report and Chicago pops HARD on Monday!


----------



## Simply Flawless (Mar 28, 2011)

They've turned Punk away from being edgy to being a "WWE Universe" force fed guy like the rest of the crap


----------



## Mistique (Oct 5, 2011)

Ratings no longer matter! Punks the man.


----------



## prateekonline (Mar 12, 2005)

I can't help but recall Rock's tweet on Punk:

"CM Punk: it's simple business - The Rock is the main event at Wrestlemania cause it draws more money in one night, then u will in lifetime."

On a side note, I think the IWC is desperate to find a hero, and they can't think beyond Punk. He is good, but not Austin, Rock or even Cena-like.


----------



## miles berg (Jun 12, 2010)

prateekonline said:


> I can't help but recall Rock's tweet on Punk:
> 
> "CM Punk: it's simple business - The Rock is the main event at Wrestlemania cause it draws more money in one night, then u will in lifetime."
> 
> On a side note, I think the IWC is desperate to find a hero, and they can't think beyond Punk. He is good, but not Austin, Rock or even Cena-like.


Bingo! It's one thing to build new stars the business needs it and it's how it works, but building the right stars is important as well. 

WWE took a massive hit three times with Rock leaving, Lesnar leaving, and Batista leaving. It is going to take awhile to find people worthy of replacing them other than Orton & Cena.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

NoLeafClover said:


> First of all, there were 5 other people in that tag match with him on Raw, so honestly he can't be fully blamed. Second of all, they have to give this reign with Punk time and let it be a reign that defines him at the main event level. Much like they did with Cena or even Miz...they need to keep the strap on him for a while and firmly solidify his spot as one of the top guys for years to come.


Keep the strap on him to solidify him for years to come? The Pepsi-drinking motherfucker is a 5 time world champion! 6 times if you count his reign with the ECW Championship. How much more time does he need?

Punk isn't fairly new to main-eventing like Sheamus, Miz or Del Rio, who only got their big pushes in the past 2 years. He's been winning world titles and major accolades since 2007. Everybody that watches WWE with half a brain knows who he is by now, and he's had success as both a heel and a face. If he can't draw by now, he'll never be able to.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

the next face of the company needs to reflect pop culture like all the others have done.


----------



## NJ88 (Jan 27, 2009)

Amsterdam said:


> Keep the strap on him to solidify him for years to come? The Pepsi-drinking motherfucker is a 5 time world champion! 6 times if you count his reign with the ECW Championship. How much more time does he need?
> 
> *Punk isn't fairly new to main-eventing like Sheamus, Miz or Del Rio, who only got their big pushes in the past 2 years. He's been winning world titles and major accolades since 2007. Everybody that watches WWE with half a brain knows who he is by now, and he's had success as both a heel and a face. If he can't draw by now, he'll never be able to.*


This is true. But this is the first main even't push Punks had for an extended period. He won the World Title with the first MITB, but as soon as he lost it (it wasnt very long) he was back to mid-card. He won the world title from MITB in 2009 and he lost it and got squashed by Big Show for months and months. I dont think he's ever been treated like a star like Miz and Del Rio, or Cena has done. He is now, but this is the first time.

He wont become a draw because NOBODY is a television draw on the show, not even Cena. The product draws on it's own, Cena being champion doesnt increase ratings, Del Rio doesnt increase them or decrease them, Miz doesn't etc. Punk sells a ton of merch which is still drawing, I'm sure he helps sell tickets which is drawing. Just because he alone doesnt draw massive television ratings (just like nobody else in the company save the Rock does) doesn't mean he should have the title taken off him, or that nobody cares, or that he shouldn't be a main eventer etc.


----------



## Tim Legend (Jun 27, 2006)

Raw was up against a potential super bowl preview on that Monday night and besides the way ratings are measured is fucked anyway, they don't really account for dvr's. And since when has one show told the story on a guys run, it's been said already punk is a top merch seller and that's much more telling than any bogus ass ratings report.


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

I will be glad if they take the title away from Punk and give it to Cena.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

HHH is the GOAT said:


> I will be glad if they take the title away from Punk and give it to Cena.


Why?


----------



## TheMiz'sFan (Dec 25, 2011)

Punk should not hold the title for a long time till WM ! It's obviously to lose his title because the title should be with John F*** Cena , because here Rock vs Cena at Wrestlemania
28 should be for the WWE Championship . Punk can lose his title maybe, JUST MAYBE, at Elimination Chamber.


----------



## Evolution (Sep 23, 2005)

Rock/Cena doesn't need the title. It's obvious Rock won't be staying full-time to defend it so they won't involve the title otherwise it will make the conclusion to the match more obvious to the casual fans. The WWE doesn't want everyone to know Cena is going over clean.


----------



## EnglishWrestling (Mar 24, 2011)

LOL. Several days ago I made a thread asking what the excuses from the IWC would be when the ratings are poor with 3 IWC faves as champions at once. Now this threa has 58 pages.


----------



## DrewForever (Jan 4, 2011)

Not punks fault. They are working to making the championship more relevant again, which is of course positive. For that to truly happen they need to change the belt to not looking like a toy. Also get back to TV 14 matches.

PG is a major factor in why feuds and matches aren't as exciting or entertaining.


----------



## LookAtMe (Nov 13, 2009)

I agree with the people talking about merch sales, but as far as booking Punk goes I prefer him as a Heel.

Some wrestlers are meant to be Faces and some are just meant to be Heels, and at this stage in his career Punk's Heel work is miles above his Face work.

The "voice of the people" gimmick he had wore off months ago. 

Punk's someone who should at least be booked as a rebellious Tweener type character who doesn't take any sides but his own.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

Yea.. take the title off of him and give it to someone who can SINGLE-HANDEDLY boost the ratings without any build to the matches, without and credible heels and without any sensible and logical storyline... But wait, NOBODY can do that when the problem clearly isn't with who is holding the title on the screen, the problem really lies within the WWE 'not so' creative department.


----------



## PacoAwesome (Jun 20, 2011)

It's not Punk's fault but that RAW sucked ass except for the last half. You really can't expect us to wait for an awesome main event when you bore the hell out of us with pure bull shit for most of the show. I was so bored I fell asleep shortly after the first hour before the main event and I had to watch it the next day on youtube. It's not Punk's fault, WWE, it's listening to Michael Cole and putting up with your idea of "entertainment".


----------



## deadmanwatching (Dec 14, 2011)

Well...I guess that is the end of that then...this is what happens when they take an edgy shoot style heel punk and try to turn him into a cookie cutter babyface...

Do anyone here really find punk funny ?


----------



## Marv95 (Mar 9, 2011)

DrewForever said:


> PG is a major factor in why feuds and matches aren't as exciting or entertaining.


Tell that to WCW when the nWo showed up. Tell that to early 90s/1997 WWE.

And they could go back to TV-14 and the product can still suck. Did anyone not witness the abomination that was 2007? Or the Raw brand from late 2002-2003? HLA and Katie Vick?


----------



## DrewForever (Jan 4, 2011)

Marv95 said:


> Tell that to WCW when the nWo showed up. Tell that to early 90s/1997 WWE.
> 
> And they could go back to TV-14 and the product can still suck. Did anyone not witness the abomination that was 2007? Or the Raw brand from late 2002-2003? HLA and Katie Vick?


True it's not a 100% fix. But it gives a platform on which to elevate the product to something more entertaining than at present.


----------



## Pavement_Saw (Oct 2, 2011)

I think I'll come bump this thread when Punk retains past Wrestlemania.


----------



## 2K JAY (Jan 2, 2011)

Love how people blame the WWE Champion when WWE has terrible ratings. Not the shitty product or storylines.

WWE announced the main event in advance, people probably tuned off to watch football or something when they saw nothing interesting was happening. Am I the only one that enjoyed Raw last week? You ratings hippies are the worst type of fans. Just enjoy the product and stop worrying about who draws heat or ratings or what have you. You're FANS, not business advisors. 

/rant


----------



## #1Peep4ever (Aug 21, 2011)

Kentonbomb said:


> Love how people blame the WWE Champion when WWE has terrible ratings. Not the shitty product or storylines.
> 
> WWE announced the main event in advance, people probably tuned off to watch football or something when they saw nothing interesting was happening. Am I the only one that enjoyed Raw last week? You ratings hippies are the worst type of fans. Just enjoy the product and stop worrying about who draws heat or ratings or what have you. You're FANS, not business advisors.
> 
> /rant


i enjoyed raw 
but people rate the show with the ratings and not by quality which is kinda sad


----------



## Green Light (Sep 17, 2011)

Kentonbomb said:


> Am I the only one that enjoyed Raw last week? You ratings hippies are the worst type of fans. Just enjoy the product and stop worrying about who draws heat or ratings or what have you. You're FANS, not business advisors.
> 
> /rant


I don't know why people keep saying things like this. First of all I haven't actually seen anyone say they disliked the show because it got a bad rating or that they base their opinion of the show on the rating. Secondly, it is a thread about ratings so OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE RATINGS. If ratings are so irrelevant to you I'd suggest just avoiding threads dedicated to them and save yourself a headache


----------



## #1Peep4ever (Aug 21, 2011)

Green Light said:


> I don't know why people keep saying things like this. First of all I haven't actually seen anyone say they disliked the show because it got a bad rating or that they base their opinion of the show on the rating. Secondly, it is a thread about ratings so OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE RATINGS. If ratings are so irrelevant to you I'd suggest just avoiding threads dedicated to them and save yourself a headache


damn love that sig of yours
reminds me of old times


----------



## charmed1 (Jul 16, 2011)

Its really not Punk's fault. This is the worse the WWE has been since the mid-90s. Titles are being handed to Punk and Bryan now because when the bookers fail they have them for scapegoats.

Ratings don't mean jack to me ( I watch TNA and there ratings suck but I enjoy the show)

Punk is a damn good wrestler and hes great on the mic but Punk has been horribly booked and lately he seems complacent and I dont blame him. Hes in the company he probably dreamed of being in and its at its worst.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

charmed1 said:


> Its really not Punk's fault. This is the worse the WWE has been since the mid-90s. Titles are being handed to Punk and Bryan now because when the bookers fail they have them for scapegoats.
> 
> Ratings don't mean jack to me ( I watch TNA and there ratings suck but I enjoy the show)
> 
> Punk is a damn good wrestler and hes great on the mic but Punk has been horribly booked and lately he seems complacent and I dont blame him. Hes in the company he probably dreamed of being in and its at its worst.



wwe was far worse in 2009. We have cena rock and a possible hell turn from cena i haven't been this much interested since 2004.


----------



## ecabney (Dec 9, 2011)

lol @ people actually thinking this is true


----------



## DerkaDickbutta (Dec 13, 2011)

Punk's merch sales far outweigh any dip in ratings they've had. They're aware that not a lot is catching on anymore, and Punk is certainly not the sole blame for it.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

DerkaDickbutta said:


> Punk's merch sales far outweigh any dip in ratings they've had. They're aware that not a lot is catching on anymore, and Punk is certainly not the sole blame for it.


Exactly. WWE over prices Merch at the live events and Shirts cost $30. They make over $20 of profit per shirt. Punk sells a shit load of merch.


----------



## Demandred (Jun 2, 2008)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> wwe was far worse in 2009. We have cena rock and a possible hell turn from cena i haven't been this much interested since 2004.




2008 had some great stuff so I wouldn't go as far back as 04, but since June or so WWE has really stepped it up. Its not great now by any standard...but its still far far far far better than it has been for the past 3 years or so.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

DerkaDickbutta said:


> Punk's merch sales far outweigh any dip in ratings they've had. They're aware that not a lot is catching on anymore, and Punk is certainly not the sole blame for it.


TV revenue (3rd quarter 2011): $34 million
Licensing revenue (3rd quarter 2011) : $9 million.

Not only that, licensing revenue is down 17% on last year's quarter, yet Punk's merch sales outweigh any dip in ratings?


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

@CMPunk said:


> I'm always fightin' mad, and I always want to be better. Tomorrow is sold out. Choke on it.


Bam.


----------



## WrestlingFan96 (Jan 10, 2011)

Mister Hands said:


> Bam.


I don't get it. (I'm kinda slow)


----------



## Kennt 160711 (Jul 17, 2011)

First off Im no Punk fan. Or is this what I truly believe, it's just something to throw out there and a possibility that could occur in the long term. I'm too tired to write it out properly so I'll come back and edit this sometime in the week but here is another one of those internet speculations. I don't know if this has been brought up or not but this is what I just thought up. My numbers and "proof" may be off a little, infact maybe off quite a bit but here I go anyway. Oh and Merry Xmas!

- Low ratings mainly due to *casuals*, but if you notice the *demographics*, well, from what *I can remember*, women is down almost 50% (who are also apparently almost 40% of the viewers, which, in turn, is about 850,000 viewers) but men(18-25) is up like 22% or something (I think that was for one show but on the whole it's like 14%) with kids also falling by a small percentage. I dunno about the teens, though.
- Due to the decrease in kids & women the increase by the males (18-25) is not enough to keep the rating where it is or even increase it.
- Until more men(18-35) and teens recognise it and see that the product is better and for more them (despite being PG) then the ratings will continue to be lower. Take the easy example, if next week the show was EXACTLY like the Attitude Era (for arguments sake) the rating would still be bad, only towards the end would people realise - hey this is good again and stay tune in and start tuning in every week again. 
- So, right now, on the whole, the product may be significantly (or just a little) bit better (to more dedicated fans but worse to the casuals) but until people realise it then the ratings won't get better and obviously it's easier to turn people away from a product than it is to keep them or draw them in that's why the ratings dropped so quickly. By the way, this may sound contradictory but I'm talking about two groups of casuals who like the stuff "we" like (usually older teens and young men) rather than the kids, women and pre-teen casuals. So, in the future, the product would actually be full of us and casuals just we like the same stuff.
- As the product isn't so much better the viewers that were viewing many years ago or "would-be casuals (i.e. if it was more adult based)" of today aren't noticing it and thing ahh it's the same old shit. 
- I know my argument probably has quite a lot of holes in it but I thought I'd throw it out there.
- Conclusion: people don't realise the product is better so stay away but the casuals of today dislike it and turn away instantly. I.e. future casuals and more dedicated fans don't know (well the dedicated fans do) that the product is better. On their own, at the current demographics, men are not enough to boost ratings.

Feel free to pick this argument apart lol, it was just something to put out there.
Merry Xmas again. Niiighttt!


----------



## hockytalky (Mar 17, 2005)

I don't believe it because during 03-04'ratings were low during hhh's reign of terror, but he some how kept the belt for over 8 months.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Kennt 160711 said:


> First off Im no Punk fan. Or is this what I truly believe, it's just something to throw out there and a possibility that could occur in the long term. I'm too tired to write it out properly so I'll come back and edit this sometime in the week but here is another one of those internet speculations. I don't know if this has been brought up or not but this is what I just thought up. My numbers and "proof" may be off a little, infact maybe off quite a bit but here I go anyway. Oh and Merry Xmas!
> 
> - Low ratings mainly due to *casuals*, but if you notice the *demographics*, well, from what *I can remember*, women is down almost 50% (who are also apparently almost 40% of the viewers, which, in turn, is about 850,000 viewers) but men(18-35) is up like 22% or something (I think that was for one show but on the whole it's like 14%) with kids also falling by a small percentage. I dunno about the teens, though.
> - Due to the decrease in kids & women the increase by the males (18-35 or is it 34 lol) is not enough to keep the rating where it is or even increase it.
> ...


Someone concise that into a paragraph, this guy seems to know what he's talking about but I'm too lazy to read it.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

Kennt 160711 said:


> Feel free to pick this argument apart lol, it was just something to put out there.
> Merry Xmas again. Niiighttt!


If what you say is true, Kennt, then CM Punk cannot carry the company alone. He is bringing back the men and teenagers, but losing the women and children. Somebody has got to step up and take Cena's spot as the PG Superman, especially if the latter is turning heel at WrestleMania 28. Punk couldn't fill THAT void no matter how hard he tried.

If John Cena was the modern day Hulk Hogan, and we're entering a new transitonal era, then we're about to have our next Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Punk fills in one slot, but who's the other one?


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

SteenIsGod said:


> Someone concise that into a paragraph, this guy seems to know what he's talking about but I'm too lazy to read it.


Cliffs

Women for some reason are almost 40% of the audience has dropped in viewership 
Kids a small degree of percent.
The rise of men 18-25 has increase.
Until teens and mens, and more old time casuals that like the same stuff we do see that the show is starting to be more catered to them despite it being pg the ratings will continue to be low.


----------



## Kennt 160711 (Jul 17, 2011)

Amsterdam said:


> If what you say is true, Kennt, then CM Punk cannot carry the company alone. He is bringing back the men and teenagers, but losing the women and children. Somebody has got to step up and take Cena's spot as the PG Superman, especially if the latter is turning heel at WrestleMania 28. Punk couldn't fill THAT void no matter how hard he tried.
> 
> If John Cena was the modern day Hulk Hogan, and we're entering a new transitonal era, then we're about to have our next Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Punk fills in one slot, but who's the other one?


Well, maybe the kids and women wouldn't be needed. As in if the company drew in enough men and older teens to boost the ratings and profit etc. But I see watch you're saying.
Punk fills one slot, Dolph Ziggler can feel the other!  His name doesn't scream out to you and say "superstar" the first time you hear it but once you know what he can do, well this applies to me, the name isn't really a problem. He can always change it if it was a major problem, though. And in a time like this for the WWE, a name should be the least of their worries.


----------



## Christiangotcrewed (May 4, 2011)

Amsterdam said:


> If what you say is true, Kennt, then CM Punk cannot carry the company alone. He is bringing back the men and teenagers, but losing the women and children. Somebody has got to step up and take Cena's spot as the PG Superman, especially if the latter is turning heel at WrestleMania 28. Punk couldn't fill THAT void no matter how hard he tried.
> 
> If John Cena was the modern day Hulk Hogan, and we're entering a new transitonal era, then we're about to have our next Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Punk fills in one slot, but who's the other one?


Clearly its


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUHp5ZyP2wU

He fits the hart character and punk is more charismatic fits Shawn character too bad Morrison is not around.


----------



## SteenIsGod (Dec 20, 2011)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Cliffs
> 
> Women for some reason are almost 40% of the audience has dropped in viewership
> Kids a small degree of percent.
> ...


Then this is a real tranisition Period catering to the Older fans. Give it time and Old time fans may come back. You have to take risks to make rewards. If it continues to get terrible Then relegate Punk to the mid card.


----------



## Kennt 160711 (Jul 17, 2011)

These next few years could be vital. The Rock, at WrestleMania should bring back many viewers or even new viewers but instead of just for one night (and possibly the next night on RAW) he could pull them in to view an amazing (hopefully amazing, and amazing all round) WrestleMania that intrigues people even more and they keep watching, not just for the Rock for that one night but because of *fill name(s) in here*. WM29 could be the return of SCSA in the ME Vs *insert main guy here/CM Punk*. Then WM30 could ideally crown the whole next batch of superstars from (hopefully) the new guys in the tag team scene, from the next mid carders, to the main eventers and world title holders to the guys most on top (most likely the main guy/Punk from WM28). 

Of course it's easy to say it like that on paper. Well, on the internet, lol.


----------



## RoughJustice (Dec 7, 2008)

If they take the title off Punk all they'll be doing is digging themselves into a deeper hole. Punk is pretty much the only consistently entertaining man on the roster at this point. The ratings are down? Shit, that sucks, maybe they should point the finger at the large majority of the roster that are completely devoid of charisma and couldn't wrestle their way out of a fucking wet paper bag before they crucify the most talented man in the company.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

RoughJustice said:


> If they take the title off Punk all they'll be doing is digging themselves into a deeper hole. Punk is pretty much the only consistently entertaining man on the roster at this point. The ratings are down? Shit, that sucks, maybe they should point the finger at the large majority of the roster that are completely devoid of charisma and couldn't wrestle their way out of a fucking wet paper bag before they crucify the most talented man in the company.


Some of us aren't particularly criticizing Punk as we are of the booking. This statement however is extremely ignorant. A lot of the current talent has a great talent in their in-ring skills and in their charisma. Its the problematic booking that is the real crook. Its Vince and the creative team who hinder guys like Alberto Del Rio and Wade Barrett from reaching their true potential.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

CMPunk CM Punk 
I'm always fightin' mad, and I always want to be better. Tomorrow is sold out. Choke on it.
2 hours ago

Atleast Raw is sold out. Good sign.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> Clearly its
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUHp5ZyP2wU
> ...


:lmao

Naw. Just naw.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Beatles123 said:


> CMPunk CM Punk
> I'm always fightin' mad, and I always want to be better. Tomorrow is sold out. Choke on it.
> 2 hours ago
> 
> Atleast Raw is sold out. Good sign.


Choke on it? Punk needs to learn how to ignore the trolls like what Cena does and just do what you do.


----------



## Loudness (Nov 14, 2011)

Female demo is down? Someone contact Batista.


----------



## rcc (Dec 16, 2009)

RoughJustice said:


> If they take the title off Punk all they'll be doing is digging themselves into a deeper hole. Punk is pretty much the only consistently entertaining man on the roster at this point. The ratings are down? Shit, that sucks, maybe they should point the finger at the large majority of the roster that are completely devoid of charisma and couldn't wrestle their way out of a fucking wet paper bag before they crucify the most talented man in the company.


This post is the perfect example of why people hate CM Punk marks....


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

Upon further inspection this is a disturbing trend. Ever since Punk got the belt ratings have dipped, and dipped, and dipped. To be frank, I don't really notice a difference in the show, he's not much better than Cena. Of course you can only go as high as you're booked, but I just don't like how he's been acting like he's the Lord almighty when he's really not doing much. As much as you hated him, WWE could really use another Batista or Lesnar. Right now they don't have a big power house babyface. All of the top guys are really small. Plus Cena's just been put into an afterthought feud. I think it's time to take the belt off Punk. The show's gonna suck regardless, but there's no point in shoving him down people's throats if folks have spoken. Some of you would run this company down the drain by booking your favorites to be superheroes.


----------



## Dark_Raiden (Feb 14, 2009)

Christiangotcrewed said:


> wwe was far worse in 2009. We have cena rock and a possible hell turn from cena i haven't been this much interested since 2004.


I disagree, 2009 had Orton/HHH, Orton/Cena and Orton/Kofi and all were pretty good. The only really bad spot IIRC was Sheamus.

Also it had Punk at his best, in a feud with Hardy, having great matches with Morrrison, Morrison having great matches with everyone, Jericho and Mysterio, Mysterio and Ziggler, etc. 2009 was far, far superior.


----------



## RoughJustice (Dec 7, 2008)

rcc said:


> This post is the perfect example of why people hate CM Punk marks....


I'm opinionated but I'm far from a "CM Punk mark". The fact is, for the most part, CM Punk is the only reason I (and a large percentage of the fanbase) consistently tune into Raw. _There are some other talented guys more then pulling their weight, but there's also a dangerously large part of the roster that are completely generic and boring._ This, combined with the shitty booking and overemphasis on political correctness is the WWE's cancer and reason the product has lost its larger then life feel that is so important in professional wrestling.

Punk is one of the few exceptions to the status quo and genuinely exciting guys on the roster. He is a self made superstar and true man of the business, as opposed to the ever growing number of boring FCW clones and Vince's goofy over-pushed pet projects like Shaemus and Jack Thwagger.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

RoughJustice said:


> I'm opinionated but I'm far from a "CM Punk mark". The fact is, for the most part, CM Punk is the only reason I (and a large percentage of the fanbase) consistently tune into Raw. _There are some other talented guys more then pulling their weight, but there's also a dangerously large part of the roster that are completely generic and boring._ This, combined with the shitty booking and overemphasis on political correctness is the WWE's cancer and reason the product has lost its larger then life feel that is so important in professional wrestling.
> 
> Punk is one of the few exceptions to the status quo and genuinely exciting guys on the roster. He is a self made superstar and true man of the business, as opposed to the ever growing number of boring FCW clones and Vince's goofy over-pushed pet projects like Shaemus and Jack Thwagger.


Wrong again. Majority of those guys have as much passion for the wrestling business as Punk does. Not everyone does the shoot style promo. Not everyone was given the opportunity to have that 6/27 promo, thereby gaining leverage for his creative license in his promos. A lot of those wrestlers are limited by booking in their character, gimmicks and promos.


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

RoughJustice said:


> Punk is one of the few exceptions to the status quo and genuinely exciting guys on the roster. He is a self made superstar and true man of the business, as opposed to the ever growing number of boring FCW clones and Vince's goofy over-pushed pet projects like Shaemus and *Jack Thwagger*.


Since when the hell has Jack Swagger won? He's a jobber.


----------



## The$ecretWeapon (Mar 27, 2011)

GuruOfMarkness said:


> Since when the hell has Jack Swagger won? He's a jobber.


----------



## RoughJustice (Dec 7, 2008)

LarryCoon said:


> Wrong again. Majority of those guys have as much passion for the wrestling business as Punk does. Not everyone does the shoot style promo. Not everyone was given the opportunity to have that 6/27 promo, thereby gaining leverage for his creative license in his promos. A lot of those wrestlers are limited by booking in their character, gimmicks and promos.


People fail to realize that it wouldn't have meant shit coming from anyone else on the roster. Punk is a self made man, everything he said was basically true. He's more then paid his dues in the WWE and been fucked around by creative long enough to completely legitimize everything he said during his shoot. This in combination with his typically excellent delivery is what made the shoot special. It would have been completely meaningless and fallen flat had it come from pretty much anyone else on the roster.



GuruOfMarkness said:


> Since when the hell has Jack Swagger won? He's a jobber.


Now he is, but unfortunately it took a painfully botched and rushed world title reign for Vince and creative to realize this.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

RoughJustice said:


> People fail to realize that it wouldn't have meant shit coming from anyone else on the roster. Punk is a self made man, everything he said was basically true. He's more then paid his dues in the WWE and been fucked around by creative long enough to completely legitimize everything he said during his shoot. This in combination with his typically excellent delivery is what made the shoot special. It would have been completely meaningless and fallen flat had it come from pretty much anyone else on the roster.


I'm not saying Punk wasn't the right man to do it. I'm saying Punk is given a hell lot of freedom with his promos and shoots compared to other wrestlers who are locked in by WWE creative's dumb gimmicks. Those guys have talent just like Punk does. WWE isn't utilizing them properly or if they did, immediately killed their momentum (see: Del Rio's journey to Raw). 

No it wouldn't. Miz could've done it and it would also have been amazing. Not everyone could do that shoot but several could, and those who couldn't have their own special niches in the WWE such as a dominant heel bigman or a rich aristocrat that also have the potential to be entertaining. Not everyone is expected to be doing shoot-style promos so to degrade other wrestlers and say Punk is miles ahead of anyone on the roster just because the shoot style promo doesn't work with them is an injustice to their other talents, and also to other styles of promos and gimmicks in the wrestling industry


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Miz couldn't have done it because he was the WWE's golden boy next to Cena at that point.

Justice is right. Although the promo he did was more free reign than what most have to deal with, that doesn't change the fact that nobody could have done that promo as equal or better than Punk. Punk was the right man to do it. Period.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Punk was the right man to do it but that wasn't my point. My point was about the other wrestlers being caged into their gimmicks, limiting their potential. My point was Del Rio for example being stuck into this chicken heel despite not having built a strong reputation. John Cena had to ignore the boos the keep the same character for years due to Vince's financial desires. What about Hunico after he turned on Sin Cara? He was basically given the most stereotypical gimmick someone with latino features could have. Jinder Mahal's repackaging is....a turban! Brodus Clay? I don't even know where this guy is, or his career. Dolph Ziggler is just now overcoming tremendous gimmick disadvantages due to his talent. 
You can't just like Punk and shit on every single other wrestler on the WWE for the reason being Punk has talent and no one else has.


----------



## Evolution (Sep 23, 2005)

I completely disagree *LarryCoon* I'm sorry. There is no one on the roster that had the ammo, the delivery, the passion and the total don't-care-if-I-get-fired factor that made that promo exactly what it was.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

You missed my point.

I wasn't shitting on any other wrestler other than Punk. I do have other favorites than him. That said, as Evo pointed out, the delivery, emotion, atmosphere, content, venom, and story behind the shoot promo had to be delivered by CM Punk and any other wrestler who could have delivered it would have made a lesser impact. He is the anti-status quo of the WWE.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

I was referring to Justice's describing the other talent as "completely generic and boring", not yours Winning. I wasn't even against the notion about Punk and his 6/27 promo. Punk was the perfect man to do it. My beef with Justice's comments were about his depictions on the other wrestlers, not Punk.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Oh, well that I would agree with you on. This roster is probably the best roster, in terms of athleticism and work ethic, we have had in a long while. The talent is absolutely there. The problem is the ADD booking and poor writing concepts that make some of those talents suffer, those that can be stars for the WWE in the near future.


----------



## LarryCoon (Jul 9, 2011)

Winning™ said:


> Oh, well that I would agree with you on. *This roster is probably the best roster, in terms of athleticism and work ethic, we have had in a long while. The talent is absolutely there. The problem is the ADD booking and poor writing concepts that make some of those talents suffer*, those that can be stars for the WWE in the near future.


This is exactly what I've been arguing with Justice.


----------



## Son Of Muta (May 24, 2011)

Yeah the creative writing team is really lacking, but TNA makes WWE look good so whatever


----------



## Evolution (Sep 23, 2005)

They should loosen the chains a bit and let the guys convey themselves across a little more on-screen. I accept the fact creative/management/Vince feels they need to get points across but they act as if these guys haven't been wrestling for years and know what they are doing when it comes to cutting a promo. If they don't then they shouldn't be pushing the guys who can't do it, or they should be coaching and training them. Hell bring back the era of the managers if you have to.

If they had the guys go out there and be themselves, you'd be able to separate those who really have the hunger and the desire to be noticed from those who shouldn't be in that upper-tier.


----------



## Randy Orton Trapper Of The Year (Aug 11, 2010)

They have a guaranteed draw in Cena vs. Rock at Mania, I don't know why they just don't experiment more with different guys, there is no downside, you have an established main event for Mania that will draw a shit ton of people, why not try others out in the meantime, they're bound to stumble upon someone with huge potential.


----------



## DrewMac255 (Dec 26, 2011)

im sorry but ive grown out of punk and i don't really like him anymore, but the ratings isn't his fault he's a only a draw with the male audiences and wwe isn't appealing to the male audience as of right now


----------



## Ucantwrestle (Dec 26, 2011)

never cared for wwe title


----------



## Hazart (Dec 26, 2011)

Evolution said:


> They should loosen the chains a bit and let the guys convey themselves across a little more on-screen. I accept the fact creative/management/Vince feels they need to get points across but they act as if these guys haven't been wrestling for years and know what they are doing when it comes to cutting a promo. If they don't then they shouldn't be pushing the guys who can't do it, or they should be coaching and training them. Hell bring back the era of the managers if you have to.
> 
> If they had the guys go out there and be themselves, you'd be able to separate those who really have the hunger and the desire to be noticed from those who shouldn't be in that upper-tier.


How would you explain Punk's Cornyass promos? They did let him loose.


----------



## Ucantwrestle (Dec 26, 2011)

he try's to hard to deliver good promo, but then again yes they are corny And lame.


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

Turn HHH heel, make him the leader of a stable with wrestlers who the IWC has a massive hard on for, and give him THE strap? :hmm:


----------



## Minijinx (Jan 25, 2009)

I bet it's because Daniel Bryan showed up, fucking loser.


----------



## DrewMac255 (Dec 26, 2011)

Minijinx said:


> I bet it's because Daniel Bryan showed up, fucking loser.


i agree


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

Minijinx said:


> I bet it's because Daniel Bryan showed up, fucking loser.


:lmao


----------



## WashingtonD (Jul 14, 2011)

Minijinx said:


> I bet it's because Daniel Bryan showed up, fucking loser.


Pretty much true


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

64 pages. Holy fuck, some of you don't know when to give it up.


----------



## HHH is the GOAT (Jul 19, 2011)

JoseDRiveraTCR7 said:


> 64 pages. Holy fuck, some of you don't know when to give it up.


This thread needs to keep going until Punk drops the strap.


----------



## avais100 (Oct 9, 2011)

Minijinx said:


> I bet it's because Daniel Bryan showed up, fucking loser.


this is soo funny but true...


----------



## will94 (Apr 23, 2003)

It's funny that like 20 pages ago, we debunked this and showed that there's not an actual report from the Observer talking about Punk losing the title, yet people still are arguing over it....


----------



## Simply Flawless (Mar 28, 2011)

If it came from Rajah odds are the story came from knobhead Daniel Pena who makes up shit and passes it off as credible news


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

HHH is the GOAT said:


> This thread needs to keep going until Punk drops the strap.


No problem, but, just to be fair, a thread about HHH burying people should be made and should remain open until he stops burying people.


----------



## EnglishWrestling (Mar 24, 2011)

JoseDRiveraTCR7 said:


> No problem, but, just to be fair, a thread about HHH burying people should be made and should remain open until he stops burying people.


He didn't bury anyone last week. So he's stopped burying people.


----------



## kokepepsi (Mar 22, 2011)

Simply Flawless said:


> If it came from Rajah odds are the story came from knobhead Daniel Pena who makes up shit and passes it off as credible news


Si, it was him


----------



## Cosmic Gate (Nov 2, 2011)

Daniel Bryan is responsible for this, he has no entertainment value whatsoever and looks like a short order cook at a waffle house. He is a boring nerd and Punk needs to stop associating with him on screen as it looks bad for him when his segments are the worst in 14 years and I fear WWE will take the title off of him because of it.


----------



## titovelioutlawz (Dec 26, 2011)

LOL @ CM Punk fanboys still crying "This is the hollidays ratings are gonna go down" LOL last year rating was 3. this year 2. Look at the NBA rating they are up from last year 

Only WWE ratings are goin down


----------



## The$ecretWeapon (Mar 27, 2011)

titovelioutlawz said:


> LOL @ CM Punk fanboys still crying "This is the hollidays ratings are gonna go down" LOL last year rating was 3. this year 2. Look at the NBA rating they are up from last year
> 
> Only WWE ratings are goin down


The NBA also started late and had a bunch of shit going down in the last couple of weeks with the Chris Paul trade, the Tyson Chandler signing and the Lakers ordeal.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Well this has more than ran it's course.*


----------

