being a great wrestler doesn't involve working for WWE.In fact WWE is 10% wrestling at most.There are many guys in the indies and Japan who can embarrass evey WWE guy in the ring(with little exceptions).
I don't think that today WWE is such a big deal for wrestlers anyway.They usually come for a big paycheck and then become bored and leave.
The thing is, it won't matter what he does to those type of people, they're sort of got their opinion automatically locked onto them. It's gone from "Yeah, well. We'll see what he's like in FCW before he can impress me." To "Yeah, well, we'll see when he's called up to see how he'll do." If he goes on Smackdown, it'll be "Oh, yeah. This is nothing, obvious canned in pops here, we'll have to see what he can do on RAW in front of a live crowd and see how they react." If he debuts on RAW, they'll look at his two minute segment and say "Oh, I'm not impressed. He's not impressive at all and he showed me nothing, typical indie star."
In the end, the only reason they don't like him is because people like him. It's kind of hipsterish I guess.
Originally Posted by 4everEyebrowRaisin
3 time WHC
Current WWE champion
Those are just a few of Punk's accomplishments in WWE. Yeah, that guy really amounted to nothing
You don't seem to have understood the question, he stated that at first. CM Punk was in the same position as Ambrose and people thought this about him. I was here on the forums when he was still in ECW and people were stating he'd go nowhere because he's just an overrated indie guy and a "vanilla midget." Right up until his heel turn on Hardy, people said Punk couldn't cut a promo, in which people defended Punk and showed others his "better than you" promos, in which they replied with "Well, it doesn't matter what he did in the indies, it's about what he does in WWE that matters." Dunno if anyone remembers those topics?
It doesn't matter what he's done now, but back then he was in a similar position to Ambrose, getting a similar sort of reaction, that is what he was saying to you. In fact, since Punk didn't amount to nothing and you even admitted he didn't, wouldn't that mean the same for Ambrose? What makes Punk different?