Wrestling Forum banner

The Reality of CM Punk in 2011

16K views 131 replies 80 participants last post by  LoMein 
#1 · (Edited)
A lot is made of one CM Punk and how the WWE screwed him over in 2011. But was he? Lets take a look at the actual situation.

First, lets remember that the pipe bomb was the WWE's idea. Punk admits to this. It was also likely scripted by the WWE using input from Punk and tweaked by punk. We know this because there was constant behind-the-scenes detail dropping like John Laurenitis, Stephanie and Triple H, and Paul Heyman that would serve as springboards for them back into the product.

So CM Punk gets a massive push leading into MITB 2011, easily one of the biggest in YEARS. It generates massive outside interest in the product, makes it onto ESPN, the works. After being given this exposure, how much did CM Punk move the needle?

MITB 2011 drew 195K buys. Up 30K from the initial installment, but 2012 and 2013 drew nearly the same figure and didn't have the push of the 2011 version.

But ok... maybe people hadn't caught up to the product fully yet or were saving their nickels for SummerSlam the next month. So CM Punk v Cena is set as the ME for SummerSlam. What is the reward? The lowest buyrate for SummerSlam in 13 years(296K). Any surprise they had Del Rio cash-in on him?

But hey, lets give him one more shot and have him face Triple H in the Main Event at Night of Champions. No more Cena crutch. Triple H is a big name, but hardly a draw after being on the bench for a while. In return, CM Punk manages to pull the worst number ever for NoC in the pre-WWE Network era(161K). Strike 3 motherfucker, they have Triple H go over and bury him in the finish.

The core point I'm getting at is this. WWE Fans need to come to terms between the guys they like and the reality of the guys they like. Someone can have a lot of interest both inside and out of the business(Bryan is the same way), but when it comes time for people to lay down their money to see That Guy.. they simply don't move the needle.

You can say what you want about Cena, but he is a proven draw.

Will Reigns actually draw? I don't know. My feeling is no, but if the money shows up at the front door, your opinion isn't going to mean shit to Vincent Kennedy McMahon or any other wrestling promoter on the face of the Earth. That's the business. They follow the cash, or they go out of business. It sucks as a fan to be told that your favorite guy simply isn't bringing in the dough, particularly when everything you see is pointing to the guy being massively over, but it is what happened.

Its also depressing as hell to see a massive underperformer at the top of the card, but IS bringing in the dough. And that also just might happen with Reigns.
 
See less See more
#28 · (Edited)
Not a matter of that. My main point is they gave CM Punk a massive Saturn V Rocket Push in 2011 that we're still talking about 3.5 years later. Its one of the biggest pushes in the history of the WWE. But the simple fact is he blew up on the pad numbers-wise. The motherfucker didn't draw PPV buys, and in fact may have lost people. Its as simple as that, and he had 3 chances to do it.

In the 3rd one, without the Cena crutch propping up his already anemic numbers, he shit out the worst numbers in NoC history during the non-WWE Network era. People are surprised Triple H buried him there? If he added 100K buys, HHH would have been on his back faster than a dead cockroach and maybe we start talking about CM Punk ME'ing WM, but the guy was pulling people out of the arena. Its the plain, hard, cold truth. Smarks, for however 'smart' they're supposed to be, overrate and mark for the Kayfabe beyond belief. Its all about the Benjamins, and you can be uber-passionate about him all you want, he did not deliver where it mattered, and that's PPV buyrate.
 
#3 ·
I absolutely agree. Fan reaction means shit when it comes to what works and what doesn't. The fans loved Zack Ryder for a while there. I'm fairly confident in saying that Zack Ryder would not have been a wise choice as a top guy.

We over analyze everything. We know what we want and won't settle for anything less. The average fan just wants to be entertained. They don't care who is pushed. They don't care about backstage politics or workrate. They want to go to shows and have a good time with their friends and families.

The people that will appeal to hardcore fans and the people that will make money very seldom overlap. Daniel Bryan is a notable exception, he was drawing well during his monster push.
 
#4 ·
You can either look at it as Punk not having as many true fans prior to the pipebomb as he/they thought and therefore only gaining fans who jumped on the bandwagon later once he got pushed.

Or

Fans knew that Punk would never be in the same sentence as Cena when it comes to WWE so they didn't buy the PPV's, expecting that he would be treated like crap anyway and the push wouldn't last.

Plus, with the way things are nowadays, how can you really tell if something is successful by judging PPV buys/ratings etc. A lot of people stream illegally so you're not getting the correct number of viewers.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Completely agree. I've said it many times, the whole "Pipebomb momentum" thing in 2011 was a IWC myth. RAW ratings never increased and the PPVs he headlined all drew terribly low for supposed "momentum". The guy was getting off on breaking the 4th wall, shooting on the management and airing the dirty backstage garbage on live television, while no other wrestler was allowed to do it, essentially handicapping rest of the roster to get this prick over.

It makes me laugh when I see people claim WWE held him back, when he was the only one allowed to shoot and break kayfabe on the mic. He never drew money that warranted such a big push in the first place. Shit, WWE still pushed him, and the guy went down as one of the all time low drawing champion in modern history. Who else could draw all time low buyrate TWICE for WWE's #2 PPV Summerslam with Cena and Brock Lesnar of all people? No doubt, Punk's stardom was extremely overrated on the internet.

Marks keep saying "HHH buried him" but when I look back its the same idiots marking out for Punk's promos ripping on Triple H(and Steph) every single week through that entire feud, without even realizing it was HHH who was giving Punk his credibility on the mic. It was HHH who put himself in that spot to keep Punk hot on the mic. Same thing with John Cena, Punk was getting over by trashing them on the mic while IWC marked out. Without Triple h and Cena, you wouldn't have a rebel punk, all you're left with is just another upper midcard guy with no credibility having a charity run with the title. Essentially another Miz or Del Rio.
 
#17 ·
Completely agree. I've said it many times, the whole "Pipebomb momentum" thing in 2011 was a IWC myth. RAW ratings never increased and the PPVs he headlined all drew terribly low for supposed "momentum". The guy was getting off on breaking the 4th wall, shooting on the management and airing the dirty backstage garbage on live television, while no other wrestler was allowed to do it, essentially handicapping rest of the roster to get this prick over.

It makes me laugh when I see people claim WWE held him back, when he was the only one allowed to shoot and break kayfabe on the mic. He never drew money that warranted such a big push in the first place. Shit, WWE still pushed him, and the guy went down as one of the all time low drawing champion in modern history. Who else could draw all time low buyrate TWICE for WWE's #2 PPV Summerslam with Cena and Brock Lesnar of all people? No doubt, Punk's stardom was extremely overrated on the internet.

Marks keep saying "HHH buried him" but when I look back its the same idiots marking out for Punk's promos ripping on Triple H(and Steph) every single week through that entire feud, without even realizing it was HHH who was giving Punk his credibility on the mic. It was HHH who put himself in that spot to keep Punk hot on the mic. Same thing with John Cena, Punk was getting over by trashing them on the mic while IWC marked out. Without Triple h and Cena, you wouldn't have a rebel punk, all you're left with is just another upper midcard guy with no credibility having a charity run with the title. Essentially another Miz or Del Rio.
 
#6 ·
They gave him a microphone and said air your grievances.... Which he agreed to.

As for the rest, numbers now are shittier than ever. Punks gone. It doesn't matter WWE fucking sucks period. Stop trying to divide people and just recognize WWE is doing terribly.
 
#7 · (Edited)
It's easy to forget how bad wrestling was in 2010-13 and Punk was pretty much the only saving grace besides Bryan. He was constantly second fiddle to Cena even when he was the champion and at one point Laurenitus vs Cena main evented over Punk who was the champion. You can't expect ONE guy to change the entire direction of a company when you still have Vince, Dunn, Triple H and the other horrible creative staff.

What's the first feud they did with Bryan after Wrestlemania 30? Kane. It's like their anti-sucess at times, they go against all logic that it baffles the mind. What happened on the Raw immediately after Survivor Series 2014 and the authority were out of "power"? Bryan was the guest GM but it was still the same shitty creative team booking that crap and it was one of the worst Raws of all time.

Bryan, Punk or even Roman Reigns can't single handedly carry the company. They need others to be on the same page and everyone works together to the best of their ability. But Vince doesn't give a fuck after being in the business for the last 40 years and he's phoning it in. His creative team is surrounded by old farts and business man without a single creative thought in their skull and they expect CM Punk to magically add new interest to their PPVs? Cena or anyone else for that matter didn't do that much better buy rates wise but Punk is the only one who got blamed because he was new. I don't know how egomaniacal you have to be to attribute all the success down to one person (cena) and god forbid when someone is more popular than him. If they spent as much effort on creative as they do burying and sabotaging their own talent purely because of spite, 2011 would have been a new heyday for wrestling

EDIT: Summerslam 2012 and 2013 did have some of the worst buys in history but who do you honestly think would have done better in the exact same position given the choices available? Del Rio? Sheamus? They would have done 10x worse. Big show really sold out when he main evented survivor series 2013..
 
#8 ·
I'll take your challenge and raise this opinion...which is probably more fact than opinion.

Fans are so use to seeing WWE not follow through on pushing a superstar, or feeding monsters to Cena, or keeping a superstar at a level beneath Cena that frankly...that is why PPV buys dont move much.

People expect the worst or at best somewhat of a "that's not too bad" result from WWE PPVs. It is why it did not matter what they did...WWE wanted immediate results to be shown just like in the Attitude Era. The problem is that during that era, WWE listened to fans and reacted to what they wanted.

Since 2004, WWE listens to no one. They do what they want and seldom listen to fans...unless it is convenient for them and their plans.

So all of these statistics mean nothing because they do not take into account the fan's or consumer's attitudes, feelings, and general disposition towards the product.


UFC can use those statistics because it does not shit on its fans. It'll shit on its fighters, but not its fans. For fuck sake...fans wanted Kimbo Slice in the UFC, and he got into the UFC. He was embarrassed, but Dana gave fans what they wanted.

WWE does not do that. So before any of you use statistics or reports or any kind of hard data...think really hard about your own attitudes or how you perceive things in regards to WWE. In other words...at the time...did YOU really think guys like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan or Edge or Randy Orton were going to be treated like Cena? No? Then take your head out of your ass and realize that MILLIONS of others probably felt the same way, so if you didnt buy the PPVs but were happy those guys were pushed, imagine how many others felt and did the same.
 
#11 ·
Wow thats all the argument you got, how's a guy supposed to be a top draw in 3 months?
 
#12 ·
WWE was so bad in 2010-before the Pipebomb that Im surprised that many people bought the PPV's. Fuck. I remember the RAW the Pipebomb was dropped on, I fucking fell asleep and had a friend call me and go.."Holy fuck dude..Did you see Punk?"..I was like..Fuck no. R Truth is in the God damned Main event. Fuck.
 
#49 ·
Not only that, the nWo also didn't magically pull WCW into the stratosphere overnight. And that booking was aeons better than WWE's.
Ridiculous thread.
 
#16 ·
So even in highest peak in his career. he still couldn't draw. and some people still think he is a draw :lmao
 
#20 ·
Couple of issues with this, first of all the Heyman and Stephanie returns had fuck all to do with the initial promo. Paul Heyman didn't return until about a year later when Brock Lesnar was dying on his arse trying to trade promos with Laurinaitis and Triple H. Stephanie was also seen only once if I remember rightly between the "pipe bomb" and the Brock/Triple H feud.

Second, Triple H didn't bury CM Punk, that's one of the biggest myths out there. He beat him in a clusterfuck match which had interference from 3 guys and saw Punk pin Triple H only for the ref to miss it, and saw him pulled off Triple H. If Triple H came out looking stronger it was only extremely marginal and Triple H needed the win anyway in the context of his more recent clean defeat to The Undertaker and the one he'd subsequently take at 28. Punk had just beat Cena twice and was about to embark on a long title reign, he didn't need it.
 
#24 ·
A lot is made of one CM Punk and how the WWE screwed him over in 2011. But was he? Lets take a look at the actual situation.

First, lets remember that the pipe bomb was the WWE's idea. Punk admits to this. It was also likely scripted by the WWE using input from Punk and tweaked by punk. We know this because there was constant behind-the-scenes detail dropping like John Laurenitis, Stephanie and Triple H, and Paul Heyman that would serve as springboards for them back into the product.

So CM Punk gets a massive push leading into MITB 2011, easily one of the biggest in YEARS. It generates massive outside interest in the product, makes it onto ESPN, the works. After being given this exposure, how much did CM Punk move the needle?

MITB 2011 drew 195K buys. Up 30K from the initial installment, but 2012 and 2013 drew nearly the same figure and didn't have the push of the 2011 version.

But ok... maybe people hadn't caught up to the product fully yet or were saving their nickels for SummerSlam the next month. So CM Punk v Cena is set as the ME for SummerSlam. What is the reward? The lowest buyrate for SummerSlam in 13 years(296K). Any surprise they had Del Rio cash-in on him?

But hey, lets give him one more shot and have him face Triple H in the Main Event at Night of Champions. No more Cena crutch. Triple H is a big name, but hardly a draw after being on the bench for a while. In return, CM Punk manages to pull the worst number ever for NoC in the pre-WWE Network era(161K). Strike 3 motherfucker, they have Triple H go over and bury him in the finish.

The core point I'm getting at is this. WWE Fans need to come to terms between the guys they like and the reality of the guys they like. Someone can have a lot of interest both inside and out of the business(Bryan is the same way), but when it comes time for people to lay down their money to see That Guy.. they simply don't move the needle.

You can say what you want about Cena, but he is a proven draw.

Will Reigns actually draw? I don't know. My feeling is no, but if the money shows up at the front door, your opinion isn't going to mean shit to Vincent Kennedy McMahon or any other wrestling promoter on the face of the Earth. That's the business. They follow the cash, or they go out of business. It sucks as a fan to be told that your favorite guy simply isn't bringing in the dough, particularly when everything you see is pointing to the guy being massively over, but it is what happened.

Its also depressing as hell to see a massive underperformer at the top of the card, but IS bringing in the dough. And that also just might happen with Reigns.
Um, source?!

CM Punk was plenty over in 2011 and onward. He was outselling Cena until they manipulated the system by stocking arenas with far too many Cena shirts and not enough CM Punk shirts.

Source:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1887927/ww...ld-john-cena-in-merchandise-sales-after-2011/

CM Punk's momentum was curtailed early on. Triple H and Kevin Nash were put in the angle. Losing to Triple H was a huge momentum killer. And in my opinion CM Punk came back too soon after leaving.

Source:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...torical-impact-of-triple-h-vs-cm-punk-in-2011

I fail to see how CM Punk did not live up to his hype and why his run should be viewed in such a negative light, despite a lot of CM Punk fans believing 2011 was his best year. We have yet to see anyone come any closer to officially dethroning Cena, and Roman Reigns does not have any track record of merchandise sales, drawing the crowds, or moving the needle. Why should CM Punk be condemned because he was not able to equal that of John Cena over a long span of time, all the while WWE was positioning Cena in the top spot?
 
#30 · (Edited)
Um, source?!
Are you serious? Punk's DVD and Punk's own words. It has never been a question where the idea for the pipebomb came from. It came from WWE Creative.

CM Punk was plenty over in 2011 and onward. He was outselling Cena until they manipulated the system by stocking arenas with far too many Cena shirts and not enough CM Punk shirts.
Over doesn't mean shit if you are cratering the PPV buys. And the numbers for PPV buys don't lie. With one of the biggest pushes in a generation, he couldn't even break 200K on a show he was pushed to the stars on.

CM Punk's momentum was curtailed early on. Triple H and Kevin Nash were put in the angle. Losing to Triple H was a huge momentum killer. And in my opinion CM Punk came back too soon after leaving.
And as i've detailed with the actual numbers, HHH went over CM Punk because he *never* had 'momentum' where it mattered. Stop trying to rewrite history to match your level of mark. MITB, SummerSlam, NoC. He had 3 chances to translate into $$ and 3 times he failed utterly. The third time, without Cena, he drew record low numbers.

You think they didn't get advance notice if they're getting good or bad buys on a show? They found out he wasn't selling, and they pulled the plug by having HHH go over. They didn't have HHH do it because they didn't believe in him... they had him do it BECAUSE CM PUNK WAS NOT DRAWING.

I fail to see how CM Punk did not live up to his hype and why his run should be viewed in such a negative light, despite a lot of CM Punk fans believing 2011 was his best year.
Kayfabe-wise, it was an awesome year for CM Punk. The simple fact is that this is a business, and as much as that Kayfabe was some seriously hot sauce, that hot sauce was not being bought by the fans through added PPV buys. People looked at it, and went... haha that's awesome.. and when it came time to buy the show, they didn't.

We have yet to see anyone come any closer to officially dethroning Cena
Punk *NEVER* came anywhere close to dethroning Cena (and I've never liked Cena.. just talking facts here). More Punk KAYFABE. Had Punk added 100k to MITB, had he added 200K in SummerSlam sales, had he pulled 250K @ NoC, we would be having a much different conversation right now as the history would be very different. I'm actually quite sure WWE would have *LOVED* to see another guy draw like Cena, but at the end of the day, the numbers DO NOT LIE.
 
#25 · (Edited)
The WWE should be thankful Punk was there in 2011 because otherwise there'd have been NO reason whatsoever to watch the show.

John Cena vs Laurenitus? Del Rio vs Sheamus? Endless Z-list celebrity guest general managers? Pff.. People wanted to see that alright. There's a reason there was a summer of Punk. He was their last straw and they failed to capitalise on him even then. They don't appreciate a gift horse when they see one
 
#26 ·
The WWE should be thankful Punk was there in 2011 because otherwise there'd have been NO reason whatsoever to watch the show.

John Cena vs Laurenitus? Del Rio vs Sheamus? Endless Z-list celebrity guest general managers? Pff.. People wanted to see that alright. There's a reason there was a summer of Punk. He was their last straw and they failed to capitalise on him even then. They don't appreciate a gift horse when they see one
It happen in 2012 not 2011.
 
#27 ·
Eh not to mention the reality was 2011 - mid 2013 was actually one of the worst periods of time in wrestling ever. The product was utter garbage and all the WMs were terrible. The show was basically Cena, Punk and part-timers. People complain alot about the current product, but there's no disputing WWE are in way better shape than they were a few years ago, they've actually done well bringing through the new generation of guys like Rollins, Reigns, Wyatt, to have an involvement in the mainevent scene. Whilst Orton has simply taken Punk's place as a maineventer.
 
#29 ·
:clap well said. Another example you could use is Daniel BryAn and summer slam 2013. Remember vince said it was. Swing and a miss
 
#31 ·
...Clearly one's ability to be a DRAW should be a broader scale rather than just PPV numbers, I thought being a huge draw meant PPV buys, segment ratings and Merchandise sales, and the roster other than Cena/Punk from 2011 to early 2013 was severely lacking in roster depth period overall which again leads to a general dissatisfaction with the product.

From what I believe Punk did decent segment ratings for RAW and excellent merchandise sales of course.

But clearly this thread starter has an agenda and will use the overall PPV sales due to a lack of interest in Punk rather than a lack of interest in depth of talent in the company at the time, it's cool.
 
#32 ·
Will Reigns actually draw? I don't know. My feeling is no, but if the money shows up at the front door, your opinion isn't going to mean shit to Vincent Kennedy McMahon or any other wrestling promoter on the face of the Earth. That's the business. They follow the cash, or they go out of business. It sucks as a fan to be told that your favorite guy simply isn't bringing in the dough, particularly when everything you see is pointing to the guy being massively over, but it is what happened.

Its also depressing as hell to see a massive underperformer at the top of the card, but IS bringing in the dough. And that also just might happen with Reigns.
The answer to your question is "no." All of the guys who've been successful and were able to draw had shown potential to do so before their first world title reign/big WM moment. They weren't thrust into the spotlight and then expected to become draws out of nowhere.

The verdict is out on Reigns. He is not a draw, nor will he ever be. Interest has already been low in him, and it's getting lower with each passing week.
 
#33 ·
The reality is WWE saw better numbers elsewhere. That's all that needs to be said because you can't prove a path WWE didn't take either way. Punk was never positioned as the top dog so you can't say he prospered or failed at it.

I can't blame them for taking Rock v Cena over Punk but they've also proved with Daniel Bryan that no matter the scenario they're still going to cram their agenda down everyone's throat. If Rock never came along they'd just find some other way to keep Punk down. All the sudden Ryback vs John Cena WrestleMania 29 becomes their can't miss ME. Or Cena v Taker to sell out the Garden. Either way Punk is getting screwed because no matter the scenario Vince doesn't believe in him.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top