Thoughts on the CM Punk DVD
Yeah it came out months ago and everyone has seen it, but when have I ever been one to have something up as soon as possible?This is going to be more of a collection of single thoughts instead of a point by point review.
The first part of the DVD focuses on Punk’s indy days and how hard he worked and all that jazz. I’ll save the reasoning for an I Want To Talk A Little Bit About that (hopefully) will be up this weekend, but the short response to this is “That’s nice, now let’s let the real wrestlers do their stuff over here.” Also those Samoa Joe matches really aren’t that great. They’re just not.
Punk talking about no one knowing what to do with him is probably a fair point. The early days in ECW were indeed awkward because he didn’t have time to do much. You can only get so much out of a four minute match with Little Guido or Justin Credible. He doesn’t mention it but he should have gotten a MUCH bigger push in the Extreme Elimination Chamber. Bobby Lashley clearly didn’t work long term, but at the time it was fair to say he was a stronger prospect than Punk.
It amuses me greatly that WWE is still trying to convince us that being World Heavyweight Champion means something. I will however agree that he should have been pushed harder as champion and shouldn’t have been treated like the third biggest act. The complaints about being beneath Cena vs. Batista on the card are laughable though. That’s a legitimate dream match that had been built up for over three years minimum.
Yes Punk should have at least been on the Unforgiven card (sidenote: it’s a bad sign that I said “it was in Cleveland” before Punk pointed out that it was in Cleveland. This is at least the second time I’ve known the city a show was in while watching the documentary.) but Jericho vs. HBK was the feud of the year and far better than anything Punk was doing at the time. Punk’s story was that he was an underdog fighting for respect. That’s not exactly lighting the world on fire.
Punk talks about not getting to be the face of the company. He also talks about not just burning but blowing up every single bridge he’s ever had with a company and being a mean jerk. But I’m sure he isn’t pushed as the biggest star because someone doesn’t get him right?
He’s absolutely right about writers not knowing what’s going on in his head. At least have a wrestler’s input when you’re writing promos if you just have to do it that way. It’s why I rarely let people do promos when I wrote OCW. They were my characters and I didn’t want people missing the point with them.
The Straight Edge Society could have been a much bigger deal. Luke Gallows and Joey Mercury did it no favors though. Also I was there when the stable debuted which was rather cool. As someone who has never smoked, drank or done any drug whatsoever, I always liked those guys. As for Punk’s thoughts on it: I LOVE the mentality of wanting fans to hate you for what you say. That’s the old school booking which has worked for years as opposed to whatever tactics heels use today.
Miz was a very well built up heel and should have been in the main event. If Punk had been in his spot, he would have been overshaddowed by Rock just as much. That’s how wrestling works.
On to the Pipe Bomb. John Cena is indeed the best in the world because he draws more money than anyone does at the moment. He’s been the biggest star in wrestling for years because he can be put on a poster or be on ESPN and comes off like the nicest guy you’ll ever see. He isn’t a, for lack of a better term, punk covered in tattoos who brags about how awesome he is all the time. That’s a great look and attitude for wrestling fans in their 20s, but for 43 year old Jim Nelson from Omaha, Punk is someone they’ll see on TV, mutter about how stupid kids look these days and keep flipping. You know what’s going to make people stop changing the channel? John Cena throwing Big Show on his shoulders and flipping him into the air for an AA.
The best thing about the Pipe Bomb? It lead to a professional wrestling match for the WWE Championship with CM Punk talking about how he was going to pin John Cena 1-2-3 because he’s a better wrestler. It didn’t lead to some southern belle talking about being in the 1% or what was best for business. The same was true for the Punk vs. Heyman promos and they led to AWESOME matches as a result. That’s called hyping a match and it WORKS.
I watched the MITB match again for the History of WWE Championship e-book and it more than holds up. The fans there look like a bunch of girl scouts compared to the ONS 06 crowd though. Note one thing though: for at least part of the match, the fans are chanting LET’S GO CENA/CENA SUCKS. They’re talking about Cena, not Punk, and that’s why Cena is Cena and Punk is Punk. Also the line about “we didn’t know how that was going to end and that’s what makes it great” is as true of a line as anything you’ll ever hear about wrestling.
Overall, I liked this quite a bit though I don’t agree with Punk on a lot of stuff. He is indeed a huge deal at the moment, but he’s not as big as Cena and never will be due to the reasons I’ve gone over. I love the mentality of being better than you are now though and it’s something a lot of people would benefit from. Good stuff and worth seeing though.
Side notes:
Punk looks a lot like Sami Zayn when he wears a hat.
There’s a voiceover early on and I thought it sounded like Road Dogg. It was Scott Armstrong, which means I was close.
For those of you unaware, Scott Armstrong is Road Dogg’s brother.
Kofi Kingston and CM Punk are some of the most forgettable tag team champions ever.
I still don’t buy that Punk wasn’t signed at least 24 hours before he cut the Pipe Bomb promo.
The Ferris Bueller’s Day Off bit was GREAT.
Don’t think I could stomach listening to Punk try to convince us of his importance to the wrestling landscape. Pass.
No on Sammartino, for the simple reason of he wasn’t national.
Well just because something is obvious doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. There are issues with politics, egos, injuries, people being played against each other etc. It’s the nature of the beast.
His DVD made me change my mind on him. I always thought he was a giant dick but this DVD showed me that he is just a really driven person.
“The first part of the DVD focuses on Punk’s indy days and how hard he worked and all that jazz. I’ll save the reasoning for an I Want To Talk A Little Bit About that (hopefully) will be up this weekend, but the short response to this is “That’s nice, now let’s let the real wrestlers do their stuff over here.”
That seems a little mean spirited. It’s always good to see where wrestlers started and to know they had a good work ethic to get where they are today. The best ones always do.
Also Someone covered in tattoos will catch the eyes of the young demo. I assumed that’s what they were after?
Hard to say who the best in the world is. Mixed bag It really comes down to how you quantify it. Since it’s not an actual athletic contest, and has predetermined winners and losers. The best really comes down to choice. I guess cases could be made for several people. Cena, Punk, Bryan. Heck you could make a case for Kane or Undertaker for having such lengthy Tenures and consistent work ethic.
Good read thought keep up the good work:)
I’m fine with people saying where they’re from. Just don’t pretend that a backyard fed which did draw some people is anything of note. There were thousands of them around the country.
Indeed it will catch the young demographic. It won’t however catch the kids, most of the adults, or families watching. Look at Cena again: clean cut, handsome, the classic features. Kids look at the strength and the stupid jokes, women like his looks, men are always impressed by good athletes. It’s a catch all, not a single demographic.
The problem with the best in the world argument is wrestling is about making money, meaning whomever makes the most is the best. It’s why the best of all time are Hogan, Austin and Rock with eveyrone else a long way off. Now, if you’re talking about best at specific things then yes, it can be by choice but at the end of the day it’s about drawing in a crowd, which is where Punk doesn’t rate as high as many others.
The problem with the best in the world argument is wrestling is about making money, meaning whomever makes the most is the best. It’s why the best of all time are Austin, Hogan and Rock with everyone else a long way off. Now, if you’re talking about best at specific things then yes, it can be by choice but at the end of the day it’s about drawing in a crowd, which is where Punk doesn’t rate as high as many others.”
Going by that logic Avatar is the best movie ever, because it’s made the most money of any movie in history, But you don’t see it on anyone’s best of list. If you work for the WWE your only going to care about dollars and cents and who rakes in the most as the best. As a fan your more likely to allocate the best to whomever is the most entertaining, the best athlete, etc. It is a business but most wrestling fans don’t usually dwell on the business aspect of it when determining the best.
my 2 cents:) look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
True, but if you adjust for inflation, which is the more accurate way to measure most money, it’s Gone With the Wind, which certainly is on a lot of Best Movies lists.
It goes back to the same issue with any kind of performance: what matters at the end of the day is making money. You can have a film that is some artistic masterpiece, but if it doesn’t make money, producers aren’t going to fund another movie by the same director. The Attitude Era was the one of the most lucrative eras in wrestling history but from a quality standpoint it was horrible. However, it kept going because people kept paying money to see it.
On the other hand you have something like 1997 which made next to no money but was as good of a product as you’ll ever see the WWF produce. It’s the difference between good and successful, which are two very different things. From the WWE’s perspective, success is all that matters. If the people are willing to pay the most money to see Curt Hawkins vs. Jinder Mahal, then that’s what we’re going to see.
Back to the entertainment analogy, a show like Keeping Up with the Kardashians is incredibly successful due to it costing nothing to make and creating a ton of revenue. On the other hand you have something like say Walking Dead which is better for drama and art, but it probably doesn’t make as much money due to the cost of producing the shows. Now, I’ll never say the Kardashians is as good of a show as Walking Dead, but it’s more successful from a business standpoint, which is the most important thing.
So wouldn’t Bruno Sammartino be the best wrestler of all time adjusted for inflation? Didn’t he have the most sell outs of msg? That’s why money shouldn’t be the only factor when determining who’s the best. It’s the same reason why there are different categories in the Emmys or Oscars. It isn’t just which is the most lucrative, it comes down to many different aspects Directing Actor, Supporting actor, Writer, etc.
Those are chosen by peers to be the best for that year in their field. I believe wrestling should be judged the same way. Austin, Hogan, Rock, Cena, can be the most lucrative wrestlers of all time.
However 70% of what they do is performance and I believe the best should be judged by said performances. That’s why we watch, to be entertained. Not how much money or what ratings they get.
Side question
I’ve also seen times when the wwe at least looked like it had the chance to be more successful money wise but didn’t do it. Which seems seems to go against their own business model.
Stuff like not following up on the Summer of Punk storyline properly. Triple h’s Refusal to put people over in 2003, Not Running a hogan flair Wrestlemania match. My question is in most of these cases they know without a proper follow up they won’t make as much money, so why don’t they follow up? I just can’t imagine ego Vince is a lot of things but he’s not stupid.