|
Post by Hacksaw Jim Powers on Nov 28, 2014 17:10:00 GMT -5
I don't recall Punk ever saying he shouldn't have lost to Taker. His main gripe re: WM29 was that he and Taker didn't close the show, that Vince admitted as much afterwards, and that he wouldn't get the opportunity the next year either (and at that time, the WM30 main was to be Batista and Orton). His next-biggest problem for WM29 was that he was paid less for the show than the other five top guys from that card.
|
|
|
Post by Zekey on Nov 28, 2014 18:05:05 GMT -5
I divide his whining into three categories: 1. Creative. Losing to HHH in 2011. Losing to Lesnar, Rock, Taker. Not getting to main event WM (even though contrary to what he says, most recent WMs HAVE had multiple main events). Etc. This is a bunch of whining for which he deserves no sympathy. He wasn't part of the creative team or management. Thus he gets no say in creative. If he wanted say in creative direction, or wanted to be guaranteed the last match at WM, he should have had that written into his last contract he signed in 2011. 2. Ryback His complaints here might be legitimate. Ryback did go from main eventer to midcarder teaming with Curtis Axel over a short period of time. I assume there is a reason for that. 3. Dr. Amman Would want to hear his side of the story. Normally a doctor should never breach confidentiality and talk about a patient's health, but here he would be responding directly to slanderous comments made about him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's no respectful way to say this but I think you're the sheep people he's referring to. There's only one main event. That's the last match. Sure Punk v Taker was of main event caliber but it wasn't the last match. It wasn't the main event. Ryback injured him. Both times he worked with him. Unfortunate. Assuming the staph infection story is true then this doctor has no credibility. I have no respect for Dr Amman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 18:21:29 GMT -5
I'm glad he put Triple H on blast for the NOC 2011 match, because that combined with the Kevin Nash involvement absolutely decimated whatever momentum Punk had built up over the summer. The argument that he shouldn't have lost that match because he was "hot" or whatever is weak as hell. HHH himself lost many matches when he was at his peak, including CLEAN losses (unlike the HHH/Punk match) at three consecutive WMs (20, 21, 22). Besides, it didn't hurt Punk at all because just about a month later he won the WWE Championship and held if for 400+ days, the longest reign in like 25 years. Triple H wasn't on the cusp of a career breakthrough when he lost at WM 20, 21 or 22. And those losses made the winners look like a million bucks, especially WM 20 and 21. What was gained from Triple H beating Punk at NOC 2011? Punk losing the title due to Kevin Nash punking him out (pun intended), losing to Triple H and never even getting revenge on Nash made him look like a jabroni. And beyond that, the entire storyline between Nash/Triple H that used Punk as a launching pad was an absolutely wretched, dogshit storyline complete with conspiracy theories and mystery text messages. And the length of Punk's title reign sounds impressive on paper, but he wasn't a relevant champion until he turned heel towards the end of his run heading into the RR. Before that, he was having mid-card love triangle storyline matches while Cena was headlining PPVs vs People Power. While I don't agree with all of his assessments regarding what matches he should have won or lost, the guy makes it very clear that he wasn't bitter or upset about wins and losses in general. The point is Vince, HHH, Stephanie and the creative team should make decisions based on what is best for the company, which Punk argued (rightfully, IMO) they did not have a strong record of doing. His beef with the Triple H loss clearly seemed to stem from the fact that it was for nothing-- it didn't accomplish anything, didn't elevate anyone and wasn't the spark which kicked off something greater. The hottest angle of the summer which drew legitimate mainstream attention was used to kick off Triple H vs Kevin Nash in a feud nobody wanted to see or cared about. How is that good for business? It makes no sense on any level.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Nov 28, 2014 18:28:48 GMT -5
Staph infection is highly contagious and very noticeable....either CM Punk thinks we are ignorant enought not to know that. Or half the roster must've been suffering from it around Mania time.
Lot of stuff seems like sour grapes, kind if like EVERY shoot interview by recently let go employees who eventually do a 180 and rejoin the company.
|
|
|
Post by Zekey on Nov 28, 2014 18:58:00 GMT -5
^ In Punks defence, he did win the court case. I think the staph infection was legitimate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 18:58:43 GMT -5
If true, Punk having MRSA and the WWE doc being either oblivious or willfully ignorant to it is pretty fucking brutal and damning. He put the WWE's road doc on blast and essentially accused him of violating Hippocratic oath due to (in his words) "laziness", while some of the other claims he made allude to the doc caring more about the interests of the office over his well-being as a patient...these are explosive claims with potentially huge ramifications so I would figure Punk is smart enough to not make something like that up but who knows. But this wouldn't even be the first time this has happened. Back in Nov 2005 to early 2006, Hardcore Holly almost lost his arm because of complications from staph. WWE even had a write-up about it on their site when it happened: www.wwe.com/inside/news/archive/fightingforlifeHolly has elaborated on the incident in various interviews and his book where he states that he was pressured by WWE to go on the European tour, given a bunch of antibiotics and was planning on suing the company if his arm ended up being amputated. And this is a guy who in the same book is far more positive and thankful towards WWE and Vince than negative, so it's not like he has some kind of axe to grind. If the same thing happened in late 2005 and in late 2013, that says a lot about how much hasn't changed about the culture in WWE despite all the advancements they have made through their wellness program.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Nov 28, 2014 19:16:29 GMT -5
There's no respectful way to say this but I think you're the sheep people he's referring to. There's only one main event. That's the last match. Sure Punk v Taker was of main event caliber but it wasn't the last match. It wasn't the main event. Ryback injured him. Both times he worked with him. Unfortunate. Assuming the staph infection story is true then this doctor has no credibility. I have no respect for Dr Amman. To the contrary, I would suggest that you are the sheep. For one, you're taking everything he says as gospel, when it's likely mostly lies. For instance, we haven't even heard Dr. Amman's side of the story. And until we do, Punk has no credibility. And no, there isn't always just one main event. Despite what you and CM Punk may say. There's been as many as three main events in recent WMs.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Nov 28, 2014 19:20:06 GMT -5
Staph infection is highly contagious and very noticeable....either CM Punk thinks we are ignorant enought not to know that. Or half the roster must've been suffering from it around Mania time. Lot of stuff seems like sour grapes, kind if like EVERY shoot interview by recently let go employees who eventually do a 180 and rejoin the company. I would suggest that the whole staph infection story is a gigantic lie. Dr. Amman is innocent until proven guilty in this matter. He says it was "the size of a baseball" at the Royal Rumble. Were that try, we all would have noticed it. Especially as he wrestles without a shirt.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Nov 28, 2014 19:22:19 GMT -5
^ In Punks defence, he did win the court case. I think the staph infection was legitimate. There was no court case. Punk and WWE reached a settlement with regards to the money owed to Punk.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Nov 28, 2014 19:23:20 GMT -5
Why would any doctor risk potentially screwing over their own career by letting staph infection go unnoticed? Seems weird a doctor for grapplers and fake grapplers wouldn't know what staph is.
Doctor may be lazy, but I doubt he is that stupid. Something just doesn't add up to me.
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Nov 29, 2014 1:36:39 GMT -5
So I finally listened to the interview tonight, must say was quite interesting.
My take on it, CM isn't "whining" in any of it he is stating facts as he sees them, if they are fully truth, half truths or lies, those aren't for me to decide really. If it was a staph infection, the other doctor who saw him has records of it and can settle that should a lawsuit be deemed the way to go or if he is being slanderous etc. So making that kind of statement to me seems to be risky at beast if it is untrue.
Some of the things I did notice were that he did not complain for example about putting over Undertaker, he asked "Ok what's after that?" I see nothing wrong with that approach, he will be there the next day while taker goes away, His interests should be what he worries about. I didn't hear any "I don't want to put these guys over" he just wanted something to come after this, those saying thats wrong in the messages obviously don't understand trying to maintain your career. So he puts taker over (not that Taker needs putting over but whatever you want to call it, he does the "J O B" for Taker, that's what it is really becasue we all know Taker doesn't need a belt and he doesn't need to be put over, the guy just needs to show up and he'll be cheered. So the question then becomes, If you put one of your top regular guys in with a guy who comes as, well really as a side show attraction once a year, what do you do to protect your main interests? I don't think anyone here even Punk questions the validity of Taker or his "earned" right to do his 1 shot a year, but as a guy who has to come out the next day, What becomes of Punk? I think it is a perfectly logical question for him to be asking.
On HHH yeah a bit of sour grapes, he didn't want to do the program, whether he won or lost it would have done what exactly for his career? And what happens the day after? Again a valid question to ask. I don't see any holes in his statements really, about the only guy he really said "sucked" was Ryback and we all can see the big guy as impressive size wise is not the most talented wrestler in the business, so why should we not believe he hurt CM Punk? I'm sure he's hurt others as well and it will happen again too. So what! Yes people get hurt, but CM has every rigth to not want to lose his head if he got hurt by Ryback in the past. Purposefully? That I would question in itself, I don't think Ryback intentionally hurt him.
Anyway, apparently there is a part II coming up which should be interesting once it does happeen so I am looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Nov 29, 2014 1:41:28 GMT -5
And no, there isn't always just one main event. Despite what you and CM Punk may say. There's been as many as three main events in recent WMs. Wow dense as usual, bah bah black sheep, argue what you will, Just because WWE says it's a main event doesn't make it so. If WWE starts calling each match Main Event First round Main event second round etc. etc for every match are you going to pay more? Yes matches can be main event CALIBER which means only that this match has the interest and if put on "LAST" on the card would be the main event, however there is only ONE Main event and that's the last match of the night. The go home happy match, the one everyone EXPECTS (though WWE sure is trying hard to stop this statement) will end cleanly and resolve something in a feud etc. That WAS how it was in the past, WWE is trying to change it, but it still is true, there is only one true MAIN event.
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Nov 29, 2014 1:43:18 GMT -5
Why would any doctor risk potentially screwing over their own career by letting staph infection go unnoticed? Seems weird a doctor for grapplers and fake grapplers wouldn't know what staph is. Doctor may be lazy, but I doubt he is that stupid. Something just doesn't add up to me. The unfortunate answer to this is simple... Because he knows who butters his bread?
|
|
|
Post by aussieshark on Nov 29, 2014 3:48:05 GMT -5
I understand what Punk was saying in losing to Rock, Taker & Lesnar - look at it this way Punk was the champ for over a year leading into his loss to Rock to a part timer, Taker wrestled once a year and Brock now and then, what it to me says ie Rock he is better then the whole company even though he has hardly had a match in years, slap in face to Punk, Taker one match a year beats Punk, again this says part timer better then whole roster.
It dosent make the roster look strong, similiar to this year when Road Dogg & Billy Gunn won tag title it makes the roster look weak.
The main event of Mania is the last match and i can understand wanting the 3 way, watching Rock/Cena again was worse then first time, Punk even said didnt care if pinned after 5 minutes.
The royalty issue which he took legal action is damning i can except next stockholders conference call some questions being asked
No answer to how much he would get when network comes in well the WWE should have had a answer to this
HHH preferential treatment no surprise there.
Issue with DR is strange but it wouldnt be first time a DR looked the other way, its happened in major sports organisations how many times have concussions players been allowed to play
Them only planning for Cena well we all knew that
Not allowed advertising on clothes, to me this would benefit WWE & Punk, espically with PPV kickers gone
Not allowed to go to UFC to accompany fighter, but HHH goes to boxing to do same thing
|
|
|
Post by aramnasrallah on Nov 29, 2014 5:46:09 GMT -5
Fuck cm punk. Biggest cry baby ever
|
|