Is CM Punk's Charcter Believable?

[Crippler]

i just want to know what does height have to do with kicking a man's ass.

 

[Dale]

Like people have already mentioned, I can't say i've ever seen Punk pushed as a badass, nor referred to as a badass. I personally see him as more of a rebel or an anti-authority figure which is why he gets compared to Austin, but that's as far as the comparison goes in my opnion. One guy gave the finger, drunk beer and beat up his bosses while the other guy doesn't look like your standard superstar and verbally trashes anything he sees fit.

 

[Slim]

It really has nothing to do with the size/height. I mean really if you want some legit comparisons just watch UFC. The biggest, the tallest, the most well built guy is not always the guy that is going to win. So I just wanted to throw off your pitiful little "oh he is short" argument cause it was pathetic. And as far as being built... there are different builds. You have the bulky build and you have the more lean type of build. Like look at Orton... he's tall but he's thin. He isn't huge and bulky but you wouldn't discredit his strength would ya? He's lean. CM Punk has a more natural lean build to him which suits him a lot better.

Now as far as the topic on hand... is his character believable? Yes. It is believable because his character is to be the best wrestler in the world. So yeah... its believable.

 

[Chadillac]

Well, In all of your opinions Punk is entertaining. In my opinion he is very entertaining. But one poster did goes as far to insinuate how Punk was more entertaining than Austin ever was. Fine. In his opinion that might be true. But, on the other hand, when I point out that the actuall numbers, at this point, prove for every ONE peron who feels that way, their are 3 more who disagree. And I stated that subjectivly he can not be proven wrong. But objectivly speaking, more people found Austin entertaing than people who now find Punk entertaining. It's not even close. I'm not saying he is not entitled to that view, but what it does is get facts involved which are allways good.

Punk is the best thing Raw has going, but I really don't like him. But so what, the facts say he is good for the WWE. In-Other-Words, Facts over-ride my opinion.

If I was only caring about my opinion, I would have Cody as the face of the WWE. But I know that the numbers point to Punk being better for business. I hope to see that change

 

[The Cork]

Of course he's not believable, its exactly the same with Brian Danielson too.

I'm supposed to buy a skinny, 5ft vegan who watches anime and reads comics, beating a badass former powerlifter black guy whos crippled half the roster? Ok.

He's IWC golden boy #1 though so nobody is going to listen to your argument, Cody fan.

 

[Slim]

Well, In all of your opinions Punk is entertaining. In my opinion he is very entertaining. But one poster did goes as far to insinuate how Punk was more entertaining than Austin ever was. Fine. In his opinion that might be true. But, on the other hand, when I point out that the actuall numbers, at this point, prove for every ONE peron who feels that way, their are 3 more who disagree. And I stated that subjectivly he can not be proven wrong. But objectivly speaking, more people found Austin entertaing than people who now find Punk entertaining. It's not even close. I'm not saying he is not entitled to that view, but what it does is get facts involved which are allways good.

Punk is the best thing Raw has going, but I really don't like him. But so what, the facts say he is good for the WWE. In-Other-Words, Facts over-ride my opinion.

If I was only caring about my opinion, I would have Cody as the face of the WWE. But I know that the numbers point to Punk being better for business. I hope to see that change

You're also neglecting to consider the era of times... in that in that time there was twice the number of people watching and even more than that than there is now. And the product back then was overall better considering there was competition to watch so it wasn't just one show you had to watch but instead you could watch more than one and draw good comparisons.

Now you have one show and thats it plus the fans that were then watching have grown up and many have left cause the product itself is stale... not CM Punk isn't entertaining them. How do we know they are watching solely for Austin? It was the product.

 

[Defiant]

In a nutshell, I think the problem is that you're looking at Punk for the wrong things. You can dislike him if you want but your argument isn't making a whole lot of sense.

And like others have said (even as I said earlier as well) you need to stop comparing Punk to Austin to validate why you don't like Punk. The numbers you are posting are also include many other factors outside of Punk/Austin. Those figures represent draw power during the Attitude Era when wrestling was at its peak, when nowadays wrestling just isn't as popular given the fans of yesterday have grown out of wrestling or have moved to UFC. There are many variables and factors you are ignoring.

And wasn't WCW beating WWE in the ratings at that point? If so, that would mean that most fans, as you say, OBJECTIVELY found Goldberg more entertaining than Austin. Which of course isn't true considering all the other reasons fans preferred WCW, like the Cruiserweights, etc.

You're entitled to your opinion but your argument makes no sense. The only valid argument against Punk's believability is him not being as tall as Lauranitis. Of course I don't agree, but the only reason I use the word valid is because "height = believability" is a matter of your perception which I can't "disprove".

 

[PHX]

Of course he's not believable, its exactly the same with Brian Danielson too.

I'm supposed to buy a skinny, 5ft vegan who watches anime and reads comics, beating a badass former powerlifter black guy whos crippled half the roster? Ok.

He's IWC golden boy #1 though so nobody is going to listen to your argument, Cody fan.

Seems like you're not the one listening cause if you read people's post you'd see it wasn't people saying "No way Punk is Austin level bad ass and can kick anyone's ass" Everyone is saying the same thing that his character is not built or supposed to be built as someone who can kick anybody's ass because he is just that bad ass or something. He's a loud mouth cult leader who wants to get his point across by any means. His point would be more valid if Punk's character was being pushed like Austin's in being a guy who will stomp the hell out of you if you look at him wrong. Punk's biggest threat is him making an ass out of you on the mic. That's all that's been said there is no blind comments being made.

You just saw the thread maker bring up height and size and was like yes yes yes! because that seems to be your gripe with anybody who came from the indy's that god forbid someone be a fan of and thinks highly of and ignored everything else even if it was valid and correct.

 

[Chadillac]

Goldberg from '98 to the spring of 99 was also 3 times the draw than Punk. How-ever, If you watched that Era, You would know that most people saw Goldberg as a WCW rip off of the SCSA look, (not character) and was not half the drawing power of Austin. Austin holds the record in every catagory with the Rock coming in second. Hogan places thrird. And no matter what you say, The fact remains that anyone with a sane mind knows Punk, nor anyone else will duplicate the sucess of those three men. Cena was sort of close, but his support was never grass-roots. He was manufactured out of WWE headquarters. The only thing Punk has in common with Austin or Rock, is that his support is grass-roots. But expanding beyond the base will not be on his list of accomplishments. Once They get everyone in place, like Dolph and Cody, I could see another Era starting but our expectations should be closer to the 05-09 era than the 96-01 era. (including the NWO/AE)

 

[PHX]

Jesus christ why do you keep bringing up drawing numbers and comparing them to today's stuff. No shit about that stuff everyone already knows all that. You're going in a totally different direction of your own topic. If you wanna do a this era vs attitude era thread make it it's own thread but that has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Crippler]

Once They get everyone in place , do you mean give them the world title 2 or 3 times.

 

[SAL]

This thread's about like 8 different things right now and 7 of them are stupid. Troll better.

 

[Darth Shizzel]

Punk and Austin 2 different personalities in 2 different eras both big draws for their era.

Punk isn't a bad ass he's guy who calls it how he sees it and he puts people over, Austin was built as a badass and lost maybe 10 times from the time he was maim event and never put anyone over.

 

[Blujay]

CM Punk has more facial hair than Austin ever did!! The numbers don't lie.

 

[Crippler]

CM Punk has more facial hair than Austin ever did!! The numbers don't lie.

I see your hair and raise you CM Punk has more tattoos than Austin does!!!! The numbers don't lie.