Originally Posted by Choke2Death
I'll be the first to admit I'm a little bias but I always try to go by facts therefore my bias only comes from me being happy whenever Punk flops. For the "hot topic" here, Punk not being a draw shouldn't even be debated.
On Raw 1000, they had about 6 million viewers and Punk got the ball to run with and he attacked The Rock to turn heel. By next week, half these viewers were gone as expected. And there's no "he didn't get to main event" or "WWE intentionally held him down" excuse to cover this up. Fact
that the indy midget
* was not a good enough draw to keep the viewers they managed to bring back for that one night. Try explaining that one to everyone that disputes Punk not being a draw!
His segments (with far better proven draws such as Vince or Cena btw) gaining 500k or 1 million viewers that all tuned out in the previous (filler) segments don't mean shit. And before somebody talks about me saying Ryback or whoever else is a draw, I'm only joking there and frankly, I don't care about them. Only thing that matters to me is Punk flopping in becoming what WWE wishes he could be. That's all and I'm not even gonna pretend otherwise.
* = I have nothing against independent (or short) wrestlers. It's just that term fits Punk to a T, so I'll use it when I see fit.
Except it doesn't suit Punk to a T... just how many 6'1 midgets have you seen? It might fit Aries, Bourne or Bryan, but not Punk. You are being ridiculous as per usual.