As I said, the reign shouldn't have happened (at least at that point without more building up of Punk) but he didn't exactly look strong against Batista from what I recall, and once again that has to do with booking. He looked like a weak champ because he was booked as a weak champ. Going against Batista at the time while not bad, didn't do Punk any favors either.
He's not going to look strong against Batista who was the second biggest babyface behind Cena, especially not with his looks. No other superstar is going to look strong against batista unless its someone bigger than him, Cena or legends like HHH/Taker. Working with batista is big rub, you dont need to win or booked dominantly to get that.
While against Jeff Hardy, he got great exposure. But not all exposure is good. He was essentially Taker's whipping boy for a couple of months, and even though Taker is a legend and it's never bad to lose to him, it's terrible to look as bad as Punk did to Taker to anyone. Once again gets exposure, but it's not exactly good when you're booked to look like you don't belong in the main event. Like I said this is what I think really hurt Punk's image in the eyes of the casual, and the worst part is if the reports are true, Punk did it to himself.
Once again, He retired Jeff freaking hardy, he WON that MAIN EVENT feud. Taker took the title off him but the win over Jeff hardy gave punk big credibility.
But once again, him and his groups were made to look like chumps. Bad exposure is bad. It hurts his image to see time and time again that he fails in his feuds and it makes it harder for the casuals to get behind him.
There is no such thing as bad exposure when working against Top stars, unless its a repulsive storyline/angles like Katie Vick. Being the leader of the stable, dominating RAW/SD show as top heel, being a threat to the top babyfaces? This is bad exposure to you? If anything he was presented as an equal to those top faces more than he deserved.
Again, you just fail to see the primary push given to him, working against top guys, dominating them as heels etc.. which most superstars on the roster would kill for.
He's the WWE Champion. It devalues the title when it's never the main event despite the fact that it's supposedly the most prestigious prize in the business, and hurts Punk's reign (and image once again) that he's constantly playing second-fiddle to Cena, even when he has the title. So even if it's not the key drawing point, if it's promoted on Raw as the main event as it should be, at the very least the title credibility and reign is preserved to some extent. Casuals don't really know who draws and who doesn't... at least as far as I know. It's not something they think about.
Casuals know who THEY bought the ppv for, who they pay money for and trust me its not Punk. Cena main evented because they paid to see him. No point in having the guy main event when he's mid card act in reality. He's played second to Cena because thats what he really was.
If the credibility of the WWE title was an issue, then they should have taken the title off him. Not falsely book the mid card act as a main event attraction.
And the other thing is when I say for Punk to main event, I don't necessarily mean him just being the last match on the PPV, but to week in and week out be the focus of the show.
He has been the focus of the show for a very long time now, you dont even realize it. Results have been the same in terms of ratings, with Cena and the mega-stars still holding the fort because otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussions at all.
But Punk has never been given a shot to prove he could consistently hold the numbers together for the show and to prove that number was just an odd occurrence.
He was, before and after TLC PPV for two months when the main event and overrun bombed huge, like never seen before and WWE obviously panicked and took him off the main events. Besides, Summer of punk 2011 was punk's peak, how did that work out for ratings?
Like Cena said in his promo, there is no conspiracy here. Punk lacks "it", he's unable to connect with masses and WWE was left with no other choice.
Instead he's a very little or non-factor as a mid-card WWE Champion while Cena is treated as the top prize in the company.
Thats because Cena is the top prize currently who is full time. As noted above, Summer of punk failed to increase anything other than one ppv by 20,000 extra buys.
He can never prove his worth if not given the chance, and only giving him a one-off shot every few months isn't giving him a chance.
He was, time after time through years to prove himself. If you stopped looking for these excuses, maybe you'd notice it.
First, it's not needing every single push to be successful, it's needing a few of them. He's looked weak time and time again after a short time of looking like a main eventer. No top draw got over by having their pushes constantly derailed. Hogan, Austin, Rock, Taker, Lesnar, HHH, Cena, etc. All almost always were booked to succeed in their feuds and never made to look like chumps as WWE Champion, even as heels. Imagine if Austin had tapped out to Bret at WM13 and then stopped being Austin 3:16. No way Austin/McMahon would've been as successful. Imagine Rock never leading the Nation. Imagine Evolution getting destroyed by Benoit in 04 and Orton and Batista becoming nothing. Imagine HHH losing the title to Foley at the RR and the WM ME that year being Rock vs. Foley. How about during HHH's 9 month reign, not only does he get overshadowed by Rock/Austin and Rock/Goldberg, but then Goldberg's feuds overshadow HHH's and HHH looks like a mid-card act in comparison, along with the title? Or how about JBL defeating Cena at WM21 and Cena getting traded to Raw before he could win the title? Or how about winning the title, but then losing in the I QUIT match to JBL? Lastly, what about Taker beating Lesnar in the cell at NM?
And you contradicted there yourself. Austin through 1996/1997 didnt receive the mega push that he did in 1998. Most of 96 through mid 97 was weak stuff. The Rock received some of the worst bullshit booking when he was put against Billy gunn over the tag title despite the insane overness, Benoit/Goldberg/Micheals/Austin have all destroyed Evolution at one point and multiple times in that period. Austin always made them look like chumps even though he was only a authority figure and not a wrestler. 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.
You don't need the "IT" factor to be a big draw. You need the "IT" factor to be the biggest superstar of all time. Punk would've never been that, but he could've been big draw by now. But they fuck up his heel run, and then they fuck up his face run. Now he's back to heel trying that again, but it's only a matter of time before that's fucked up. I don't believe HHH had the "IT" factor, but he had proper booking, character development, and excellently written storylines. I'd say if he did have the "IT" factor, he could've very well been the biggest star of all time. But that's just me.
Absolutely laughable post. You have no clue what "it" means. Its the ability to connect with fans where they are willing to pay money to see you perform, buy PPVs on your name alone, tune in when you're on their TV screen. Ability to draw, ability to grab someone’s attention, to possess the charisma, charm, skills and a look to back the character is "IT Factor". By your logic, the only one's who had it are Rock, Hogan, Austin, ultimate warrior and Goldberg. According to you, The Undertaker never had "It" because he was never the biggest, never was a top guy in the company, almost never lost any feud, has the most match wins in WWE history even more than John Cena, plus always a guaranteed wrestlemania win to protect him. Even in the 90s and even as a heel he hardly lost to anyone other than Austin and Bret. But it would be completely idiotic on my part to claim The Undertaker didnt have "It" when he's become one of the biggest legends. With that ridiculous statement "Biggest superstar of all time", what you're trying to say is Randy Savage never had "it" or Ric Flair never had "It" or Sting, Nash etc. To say HHH didnt have "IT" is stupid especially considering his 2002 peak, when he was bumping ratings and buyrates huge along with Hogan, as a babyface upon his return.
Are these excuses? I prefer to think of them as reasons. Are they valid reasons? Absolutely. Fact is none of his runs were booked properly all the way through. Because of that all those championships. accolades and guys he worked with in the past were all for naught. It's exactly why a poorly executed push can destroy someone. Punk's been dealing with it for the majority of his career. He's dealt with it for the past year and his title run, his face run, and his drawing power have suffered because of it.
No, they are reasons why many of his pushes didnt end well with the right pay-off but they become excuses when used as such, to cover up for his lack of drawing ability.
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.