When Punk loses viewers at 10pm it's brushed under the rug. When he gains at 9pm he's a mega draw. It's the hypocrisy that gets me tbh.
Punk losing viewers gets brushed under the rug? What alternate universe do you live in, Starbuck?
I don't disagree with your post. This doesn't prove Punk is a "draw", but certainly it proves that he's not an anti-draw which so many spout ridiculously. Punk's incredibly inconsistent, but he can draw big, arguably bigger than anyone else on the roster when put with a big draw (besides another big draw). When he's not with a big draw though, it's split with whether he draws well or not.
Actually, that intrigues me a bit. A few weeks ago I got together all the breakdowns up to that point from this year and saved them. What I'm gonna do for the fuck of it, is gather all the Punk segments where he wasn't with a proven draw (which at this point in WWE I'm only considering Cena, HHH, Rock, Undertaker, Lesnar and maybe Foley... though he's a legend I'm not sure how big of a draw he actually is in this day and age. I'd need to check his segments in breakdowns to see that for myself). I'll have to wait until Friday or Saturday to do it since that's where my laptop is, so if anyone else wants to beat me to it, feel free. I'm interested myself in seeing if he really has never drawn well with a proven draw. The one I was thinking of at first was the Punk "shoot" on Laurinaitis in January a couple of weeks before the Rumble, but then I remembered Foley was there at the end of it and was there for a good enough time where he'd have brought in viewers if he was going to.
But hell, Laurinaitis could be considered a proven draw as well when he was an authority figure because of just that... he was an authority figure.
Then again, today in WWE what really draws exceptionally isn't an individual wrestler, but a great storyline.