Yikes, another unfunny post from a rejoiner a couple above me. Haven't these guys got jobs or something?
It appears some people persist in skewing these postings to suit their mode of fandom. That takes dedication, I'll give them that! However, it's probably a matter of misinterpretation somewhere along the line where they lost track of the significance of certain things. Granted, I only know a little bit about the entire spectrum of this business so I'll go with areas I know at little to discuss conceptually.
Why not just actually look at what the indications are without getting carried away by our love/dislike (come on, we're not kids anymore and can make a distinction between what's there and what's not) for a wrestler? No biased viewpoints, no sides taken. Just look what's presented in front of our eyes? Then again, not every piece of data is made publicised in the first place which further casts doubt over the validity of our weekly scrutinising sessions.
But I digress from my original point, so let's get on with it.
To Punk fans. Numbers suggest that Punk drew a healthy amount casual intrigue in a show that was low in viewership. He's also been the beneficiary of solids gains during other times during his reign and was a hefty merch mover during his white-hot streak in 2011 (actually had Cena toppled off the #1 spot for the first time since 2006-ish I think). However, he's been involved in some very nasty lull-spots such as the countless matchups with Miz that saw viewers get out of dodge, as well as that worrying trend where matches weren't received with nearly as much interest as his promos were.
Punk drew no matter which way people try to spin it as in he gained viewer numbers. As I pointed out before, though, there's a difference between someone who draws
and someone who drew
. The guy is not a proven stand-alone figure that is capable of carrying the flag solo in barely anything outside of being a big hometown hero. Being at least reliable in most areas for a sustainable amount of time makes you a bankable and investment-worthy draw. Punk isn't at that level.
To his haters. You can attempt to look at this anyway you like like 'he hasn't got a good look, not a company man, can't carry stuff by himself', etc. That's fine as they're all things that can't necessarily be disproven
. To draw these fairly obscure comparisons between guys of yesteryear, the push-timeframe ratio in comparison to Punk's and all that, however, could lead us to endless round-about arguments that also can't be proven. Ironically, a lot of anti-Punk point made stray away from the one thing you guys should be relying on: numbers. They indicate, but aren't the summary of someone's career until that guy/gal finished up one way or another.
Triple H until dec 1999, is quite possibly the weakest booked top heel in history, not only was he constantly overshadowed by corporate ministry but also lost his no.1 contender's spot to a woman in Chyna. Always got his ass whipped at the highest level by Austin that entire year even as the WWF Champion. In 2003, HHH similar to punk was overshadowed by Rock/Austin, Brock/Angle and even Vince/Hogan. Cena, again similar to punk received a great main event push only on the B-show, as did Lesnar for the most part. AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DREW despite the set backs
I stand by what I said few pages back, Anyone else with the same 6 yr push would have been a solid reliable draw for WWE by now.
Like these ones. How can one accurately compare one era to another when the company works its model around different cycles through the generations? How can one compare the stars of one era to another when they were the beneficiaries of many things that these guys weren't and, to a lesser extent, vice versa? How could you be confident in this 'guideline to drawing' that performers must adhere to when they are subjected to the different timeframes, audiences, business models, as well their own strengths and weaknesses? This is particularly interesting to note when you acknowledge the factor/importance of 'good vs. poor' booking which most people view as spasmodic and lackadaisical nowadays in comparison to yesteryear.
And if you really think he was getting pushed
for 6 years then you're off the mark. Punk has not
been in the spotlight for 6 years. As for his biggest push to date, keep in mind he has been on the end of it for a little over a year where has been through a heel turn, a face turn, back to a heel turn almost to the exact day within that timeframe. Today's audiences in particular appear to take time to acclimatise to change.
The business can be quite reactionary, and has to respond to the world changing around it (no matter how their renowned micromanagement style goes about getting a unity amongst workers in their performance style). Times and circumstances change, which means performers are never likely to be, nor received generally, as their proceeders. It's common consensus by a lot of people that this is a particularly awkward era for wrestling promotions as well, in spite of the turbulent nature and esoteric interest group that's always been apart of this line of work.
People really should be patient with the business side of things, although I don't know why fans have to be considering it shouldn't need to satisfy their nosey-parker ways in the first place. The whole notion is a lot like an overgrown baby at first - it stinks, it cries, is a really fucking heavy thing to drag along and needs a whole lotta' nurturing. If it's raised right, though, it grows up big and strong and is the result of a lot of quality time invested into it.