This is a discussion on WWE Backlash - CM Punk vs Kane within the WWE Pay Per View forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; Originally Posted by KenTheKiller
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
But I think most of us agree he's not credible enough NOW however as I said, I think after his title reign hurt him far more than his title reign itself.
I meant 2004 lol... or was it 2005? It was during the period when I wasn't watching wrestling so it isn't exactly etched into my memory.
I agree that what happened after his reign hurt him more, namely the fact that he dropped back down to midcard like a stone. The worst part was getting owned by Orton in a match on RAW after Orton cost him the title. I was expecting some epic feud...
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes but he's not credible enough right now. It would indeed be one step in the right direction but he really needs quite a few more big wins before he is fully established as a main event level wrestler. Kane can be the starting point, but I want to see him go over one of the top stars at least once.
Considering in 2002 Shelton Benjamin went over Triple H a couple of times, I don't see why WWE are so reluctant to put ANYONE over their top stars nowadays. Everyone is just so overprotected and it creates too much of a gulf between the top guys and everybody else, meaning WWE will suffer long term.
I am not saying it wouldn't be easy to make Punk credibPle though. Just a few months of strong booking with constant PPV exposure and some wins over big names.
Pretty much what I was getting at...
In an ideal world it would take years of being built up to be a credible champion, but eh.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I still didn't see him as a "lucky survivor" for most of it. I saw it more as "a guy who needs to prove he's as good as he is" kind of thing, but everytime he's about to prove it something stops it. Which as I said before would lead to a payoff if done right.
So, even though Micheal Cole and King continually referred to him as lucky and a survivor (in very much the same fashion they did with Rey when he had the belt) you chose to see it a different way? That's cool I suppose. If you can find a way to positively spin the shit WWE does to it's greatest prospects for the future then that's good for you and them... I can't do that. And you're right, there was no payoff, which was the real damage in my opinion... You'd think winning the title would be the payoff though really wouldn't you? For a face, I mean.
And EVERYONE was marking when he won the ECW title, so I wouldn't say it was too late. The only problem with it was A.it was on ECW B.the show was pretaped so a lot of us knew, and C. the matches leading up had shit finishes besides 15 min of fame.
Of course everyone was marking out. Everyone loves Punk. But he'd had shots at the title before where his showings were poor, or he simply lost to lesser opponents (December To Dismember; where he was the first eliminated cos WWE felt Hardcore Holly should get a push over him because, and I quote "He's been here longer". Night Of Champions; where Punk lost the tournament finals to Johnny Nitro, who hadn't even been in the tournament. Granted that one was less WWE's fault and more Benoit's. I'm assuming the plan was for a short reign for Nitro, dropping it to Benoit, who would fued with Punk and eventually drop it to him, but we'll never know). He then went on to win, and lose again, on free TV. The only champion since RVD was awarded the title and then lost it to Big Show, to do that. And he lost it to lower mid-card mainstay Chavo Guerrero. Not to insult Chavo's obvious talent, but he is not been singles belt material for a long time. It was a joke.
I agree that what happened after his reign hurt him more, namely the fact that he dropped back down to midcard like a stone. The worst part was getting owned by Orton in a match on RAW after Orton cost him the title. I was expecting some epic feud...
The Orton thing was a fucking travesty. This guy cost him his World Heavyweight Title, and he takes one shot at the guy and loses, so he gives up? Way to make him look like a pussy WWE!
In an ideal world it would take years of being built up to be a credible champion, but eh.
That, or those with the talent and charisma to make it would be pushed correctly, and Vladimir Kozlov and Mike Knox would fuck off to the lower mid-card to work on their obviously lacking skill sets.
Gah!!
Sorry, that was a rant. Haha!!
So yeah, Punk to beat Kane anyone?
__________________
You mess with Piper, you'll end up either bald or dead.
WWE didn't call him a fluke champion though. Every time he won he was going to win a big match something happened stopping him from winning it. WWE had mentioned it. They said Punk never got a chance to prove himself for one reason or another. Thewhen Kane interfered in the match with Batista and when Punk was taken out of the 5 man match. Besides that he beat Kane and JBL cleanly, mind you.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I feel like we're having this discussed quite a bit Ken. Haha!! In here and in the Hardy thread in the Spoilers/News section. Maybe we should agree to disagree, cos you're never gonna convince me that WWE were promoting Punk as the plucky kid with heart and bad luck, and I don't seem to be able to convince you they were making him look weak as a champion by having him dominated throughout his title defences against anyone you care to mention and then pulling the win out through some outside factor (Kane's interference, etc...). As I mentioned in the Hardy thread, his only convincing win was that over JBL at Summerslam, and even then it was bowling shoe ugly, and more even than dominant.
If he defeats Kane convincingly at Backlash I'll be happy to say that WWE have started his push to the title properly, but in all honesty I can see them doing exactly the same thing they did last time, making Punk face bigger guys to show he's smaller and having him pull an illogical win out of the bag after taking a beating for ten to fifteen minutes.
__________________
You mess with Piper, you'll end up either bald or dead.
I hope that's not what happens but it's very possible.
And for the record, he also beat Snitsky To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. TWO CLEAN WINS, SON!
Okay that was a reach.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I hope that's not what happens but it's very possible.
And for the record, he also beat Snitsky To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. TWO CLEAN WINS, SON!
Okay that was a reach.
Indeed. Did you hyper-extend your elbow?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny Poffo
You can't be kind without spilling some of it on yourself.
I hope that's not what happens but it's very possible.
And for the record, he also beat Snitsky To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. TWO CLEAN WINS, SON!
Okay that was a reach.
Yeah, beating Snitsky does nothing... Except make me giggle cos he broke his useless face. Haha!!
You said something in the other thread about Punk's match at the Great American Bash against Batista being back and fourth... That's not how I remember it, and honestly I dispise GAB so I'm not about to watch it again to check, but as I remember it. Punk got in ocassional offence (hope spots if you will) while Batista dominated with power, until Kane caused the distraction.
It's cool if you saw it differently, and I'm not saying Punks status wasn't elevated by his title reign, it obviously was, I just think he was put across badly and other than Snitsky (and even then he was still facing a bigger guy) and his Summerslam win over JBL, I don't feel like he was ever put over by his opponents or the writing.
I'm not saying rewatch the show. DL the match. It was much less one sided than you remember, I'm damn near positive. I remember watching with family and a friend who isn't smart and they were all impressed with Punk doing so much to Tista.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
