Why The Rock Should NOT WIN THE WWE CHAMPION THIS SUNDAY, WM RANT! Video

[bestintheworld361]

[attachment=208]

Promos aren't supposed to bury your opponent. I'm sure The Rock could be a complete assh**e and shit all over Punk if he wanted to. He could mention how WWE is shit and Punk being ''the best'' (a gimmick stolen from Daniel Bryan btw which he could also bring up) means nothing when everyone else is complete shit. He could mention that he's nothing but a One Shoot Wonder, mention how he's a vanilla midget who could legit get his ass beat by just about everyone in the locker, and etc. But instead he builds him up and puts him over, so that no matter the result it'll be a big deal.
Also, like Kevin mentioned The Rock is going to be here for just about every Raw (what more do you want?), The Rock = ratings, The Rock = entertainment, The Rock = a prestigious WWE title (which could also mean a new Title design). I really don't understand all this hate for The Rock. The dude is putting people over, showing up at all the shows (including Smackdown for f*ck's sake) yet that's not good enough. "OMGZ PART TIMERZ. MORE PUNK PIEPBOMBZ PLZ. ROCK IS STALE BUT "BITW!! 7483843 DAYZ IS TOTEZ AWESOME"

 

[Swift]

Got me there. I take back everything I just said as it is completely irrelevant. :george:

 

[Donald Trump_]

 

[Swift]

:hogan: ?

Holy shit. I only saw this now. I lol'd.

I'd totally mark.. brother!

 

[bestintheworld361]

touche :damn:

 

[JeebaK]

:hogan: ?

I would totally mark. No matter how much some marks hate him for being "Selfish", he will always be the number 1 superstar of all times.

ONE MORE WRESTLEMANIA MATCH

 

[Senhor Perfect]

Hulking up against Punk, the big boot, then the leg drop :

 

[Stopspot]

Whilst there is the probability of a swerve I still think that the most likely guy to walk out of the rumble WWE champ is this guy.

It simply is the most exciting way to start the road to WM.

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

I also think it's 95% chance that Rock is winning..

I'm a big fan of both Punk and Rock, my problem was never with Punk losing the title or with Rock winning it.

I'd love to see Rock winning the title and walk around as champion, but my problem has always been with a part timer winning the title, whether it's Rock, Brock, HHH, HBK, Taker...etc

Ending the longest reign in the last 25 years should be something to elevate a young talent, I honestly wouldn't mind Punk's reign to be ended by Ryback or Daniel Bryan or any other talent, but not by Rock or Cena who already established themselves as main eventers.

 

[Bort]

CM Punk, here's an advice: NEVER use a Harley Race promo as basis of your own. You're not Harley Race in the ring, you're not Harley Race on the mic and you certainly aren't as manly as Harley Race in everything he has done. It makes you pale in comparison to THE man.

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

For those who don't want The Rock to win, who else should win the WWE Title then? And be realistic and don't name anyone who Punk has already beaten. Pretty much the only ones left that are credible and that Punk hasn't beat is Rock and Undertaker (<----possible WM match.) If Punk beats The Rock, then the guy who beats him will have to pretty damn special. There's really no one like that that isn't already a victim of Punk's reign.

Why not? There is nothing that states someone Punk's previously beaten can't beat him. Start booking someone up now, and realistically you can still present them as a threat despite losing in the past. I mean this is wrestling, six months can make all the difference in the world in terms of where a character stands kayfabe wise. They could accomplish something to similar effect in less than half that time if they actually tried. Of course it's not nearly as satisfying as the Rock alternative, but to completely discard it as a viable alternative isn't really fair.

Although, to be fair, just asking this question at this point isn't fair to any against The Rock winning the title. WWE's already booked the past few weeks and month with the thought Rock is going to win the belt, which lead them to overplaying, and thus discarding Ryback as an option. Who was by far probably the best from a business and kayfabe point of view. Of course at this point it's going to appear as nobody but The Rock is a good option, because that's what WWE's been booking too. People like me against The Rock winning would've altered the booking decisions of WWE from weeks, possibly months ago.

Yeah, the "part timer" card doesn't really hold up because Rock has been on the last three Raws and a Smackdown. And he's scheduled to be on a whole lot more (perhaps all of them) from here to Wrestlemania. Which means for the build to his matches and for the duration of his title reign (should he win it), he's not a part timer, he's a regular on the show. Plus, Punk's long reign ending and Rock winning the belt again both occurring at the same time is a hell of a way to start off the road to Wrestlemania.

So Rock's not a part-timer? Never realized he signed on to work house shows but since that's apparently the case I'm better with him winning the belt. Hopefully he takes on the other roles of champion and appear at various media outlets during a lot of his time off from wrestling to promote all there upcoming wrestling events. Because if he does that, then yeah, I'd have very little problem with him being champion.

Now that I'm sick of sarcasm, I'll openly say I haven't heard anything about Rock working house shows, but I'll be really happy to hear if that is the case and apologize for the aforementioned sarcasm. But if he's not doing house shows, he's still a part-timer in my opinion because he's only putting in a part of the time the rest of the roster is putting in. When Jericho comes back to WWE, he does all the house shows and tour, I believe he did quite a few media promotion, but either way when he comes back he dedicates himself completely to wrestling one hundred percent. Rock hasn't shown that to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love that it appears he'll be at every show (at least Raw) from now to Mania. It certainly makes things more bearable for me
. However that still doesn't make it okay that he just comes back and win the belt over the rest of the roster who works their asses off for the business all year long and dedicates themselves to their craft. Not someone who does this one the side when he doesn't have a movie to shoot. I feel like I've said this a million times already, but this honor before reason thinking is how I feel.

 

[Lockard 23]

For me, I don't mind The Rock winning not just because I'm a huge Rock mark, but because I want Punk's title loss to mean something in the biggest way possible, and Rock is obviously a stronger candidate to take it than anyone else. It's also gonna be a sight to see, Rock having the belt again. Kayfabe wise, it really says something about the belt's credibility when Rock cares for it so much that he's willing to come back and challenge for it and defend it for as long as he has it (we know he won't keep it past Mania, but kayfabe speaking, Rock would intend to hold on to it and defend it for as long as possible. Imagine him cutting promos about how he plans to take on anyone on the roster who dares to take the title from him.) And as I've pointed out before, I personally want to see someone who Punk hasn't already beaten take the belt off of him, which is one of the reasons Rock losing at the Rumble but winning it at the Chamber is Blue. Same goes with Undertaker's streak - would be incredibly disappointing to see someone who is already a part of the streak rise back up and be the one to end it. Not that the idea of a rematch is an absolute terrible idea, I could see it working in some cases, but if given the choice, I'll go with a fresh opponent.

The Rock not working house shows is a decent reason to think WWE might not put the belt on him but since house shows are non-televised events, none of us should really complain about that. Plus, the more Rock wrestles, the more risk he takes in getting injured, which wouldn't be good since it would fuck up Wrestlemania as well as some of his movie roles. I know the same thing goes for the rest of the roster but Rock is obviously more valuable in a business sense. I'm sure the roster won't be complaining when they receive a much larger paycheck as a result, and there's still several more months out of the year (and the year after that, and the year after that, etc.) to build up new stars.

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

For me, I don't mind The Rock winning not just because I'm a huge Rock mark, but because I want Punk's title loss to mean something in the biggest way possible, and Rock is obviously a stronger candidate to take it than anyone else. It's also gonna be a sight to see, Rock having the belt again. Kayfabe wise, it really says something about the belt's credibility when Rock cares for it so much that he's willing to come back and challenge for it and defend it for as long as he has it (we know he won't keep it past Mania, but kayfabe speaking, Rock would intend to hold on to it and defend it for as long as possible. Imagine him cutting promos about how he plans to take on anyone on the roster who dares to take the title from him.) And as I've pointed out before, I personally want to see someone who Punk hasn't already beaten take the belt off of him, which is one of the reasons Rock losing at the Rumble but winning it at the Chamber is Blue. Same goes with Undertaker's streak - would be incredibly disappointing to see someone who is already a part of the streak rise back up and be the one to end it. Not that the idea of a rematch is an absolute terrible idea, I could see it working in some cases, but if given the choice, I'll go with a fresh opponent.

Yeah, I get all that. And I agree with a fresh opponent being better than somebody he already feuded with, I was just saying I don't think there was any reason to exclude his past opponents, since I don't consider it outside the realm of possibility nor do I consider it a bad idea.

The Rock not working house shows is a decent reason to think WWE might not put the belt on him but since house shows are non-televised events, none of us should really complain about that. Plus, the more Rock wrestles, the more risk he takes in getting injured, which wouldn't be good since it would f*ck up Wrestlemania as well as some of his movie roles. I know the same thing goes for the rest of the roster but Rock is obviously more valuable in a business sense. I'm sure the roster won't be complaining when they receive a much larger paycheck as a result, and there's still several more months out of the year (and the year after that, and the year after that, etc.) to build up new stars.

House shows do matter to me because in my opinion the only people who should be the WWE Champion are the people who give their all to the company. If Rock doesn't participate in house shows, and that doesn't mean he has to wrestle, then he isn't giving his all to the company. Especially when you're only part of the roster for a fourth of the year.

As for the more time to build up new stars comment, hope that's not trying to defend Rock/Cena II that's bound to come from this. I would have a much smaller problem with Rock winning if he was going to face say Dolph (been dream-booking this for over a year now), instead of just letting Cena get his win.

But alas, I've accepted months ago that Rock is winning the WWE Championship, thus I don't care and mostly posting to contribute to the discussion. I'll be very surprised if Rock loses at the Rumble.