Wrestling Thread (WWE, AEW, etc)

Originally posted by tjd808185:
By TLC he'll pass Cena and be the longest reigning champ of the last 25 years. The rest of the names are from a different era and has no chance of coming close to it. I guess my point would be his title reign already accomplished what it needed to accomplish.

Reading the report that you posted it said they were planning Rock Cena 2 still. Punk v Taker, Rock Cena 2, Triple H Lesnar 2 would be a very sh*tty card. I think you pretty much have to go with Rock v Lesnar and use Cena in the World Championship if you're doing Punk's title run vs the streak.

Now if they had the balls to let Punk beat Taker at Mania wow! I just don't see it because that comes at a hefty cost.

didn't Hogan have a 4 year run in the Mid 80s? Or is that too long ago lol.. Triple H and Lesnar should have been a very good match, but for whatever reason it was awful.. maybe round 2 would be better, but I still prefer the scenario of Brock costing Rock the match @ RR since he's a "Heyman Guy" & then the match at WM... it will be interesting. Also there is talk of Cara vs Mysterio which I think would be a hell of a match, add to that Punk actually main eventing the big show for the first time ever.. You can see why I am looking forward to it

Originally posted by Paul:

Originally posted by tjd808185:
By TLC he'll pass Cena and be the longest reigning champ of the last 25 years. The rest of the names are from a different era and has no chance of coming close to it. I guess my point would be his title reign already accomplished what it needed to accomplish.

Reading the report that you posted it said they were planning Rock Cena 2 still. Punk v Taker, Rock Cena 2, Triple H Lesnar 2 would be a very sh*tty card. I think you pretty much have to go with Rock v Lesnar and use Cena in the World Championship if you're doing Punk's title run vs the streak.

Now if they had the balls to let Punk beat Taker at Mania wow! I just don't see it because that comes at a hefty cost.

didn't Hogan have a 4 year run in the Mid 80s? Or is that too long ago lol.. Triple H and Lesnar should have been a very good match, but for whatever reason it was awful.. maybe round 2 would be better, but I still prefer the scenario of Brock costing Rock the match @ RR since he's a "Heyman Guy" & then the match at WM... it will be interesting. Also there is talk of Cara vs Mysterio which I think would be a hell of a match, add to that Punk actually main eventing the big show for the first time ever.. You can see why I am looking forward to it

Yeah, I remember Hogan's run being something like four years. But WWE tends to forget stuff at a whim. And why not, they are trying to build up their current guy, C.M. Punk.

Originally posted by btthepunk:
Despite that report, I still fully expect Rock to win the title at Royal Rumble.

Here is my thing, why do you bring in the Rock to job for Punk? Now, does Rocky need the belt, no. But, really, you let him job to Punk? Why? Where is the logic in that? And who gives a s**t if he isn't on TV every week or the pay per views? Overall, who is going to be the bigger draw/ratings bump as the champ, Punk or the Rock? This isn't rocket science. Who would put more asses in the seats at WM, Punk or Rock? Especially, in the main event? The fans would go ape s**t over a Rock victory. To be sure, the internet wrestling community loves them some CM Punk (I met the guy at WM 25, he is a royal a*****e; in fact, I wasn't the only one that thought so, either), but the larger wrestling fan base loves the Rock.

Originally posted by Paul:
didn't Hogan have a 4 year run in the Mid 80s? Or is that too long ago lol.. Triple H and Lesnar should have been a very good match, but for whatever reason it was awful.. maybe round 2 would be better, but I still prefer the scenario of Brock costing Rock the match @ RR since he's a "Heyman Guy" & then the match at WM... it will be interesting. Also there is talk of Cara vs Mysterio which I think would be a hell of a match, add to that Punk actually main eventing the big show for the first time ever.. You can see why I am looking forward to it

That was 30 years ago but you're also talking about time period with a few PPVs a year. If Hogan entered a program with someone that program lasted 4 months minimum.

That's why he'll be the longest reigning champ of the modern era.

At least we agree with the undercard.

Originally posted by fropwns:
Here is my thing, why do you bring in the Rock to job for Punk? Now, does Rocky need the belt, no. But, really, you let him job to Punk? Why? Where is the logic in that? And who gives a s**t if he isn't on TV every week or the pay per views? Overall, who is going to be the bigger draw/ratings bump as the champ, Punk or the Rock? This isn't rocket science. Who would put more asses in the seats at WM, Punk or Rock? Especially, in the main event? The fans would go ape s**t over a Rock victory. To be sure, the internet wrestling community loves them some CM Punk (I met the guy at WM 25, he is a royal a*****e; in fact, I wasn't the only one that thought so, either), but the larger wrestling fan base loves the Rock.

It won't be clean. Either it will be to build Rock v Lesnar and Lesnar will interfere or it will be another Ryback type finish.

I actually agree with you though. Personally I think Punk should drop the title at TLC win the Rumble and challenge Rock at Mania. If you can get Austin involved it easily outdraw any other program.

If WWE runs with Punk v the Streak, Twice in a Lifetime and the only rematch worse than Twice in a Liftetime it might go back under the million buy mark.

Originally posted by fropwns:
Here is my thing, why do you bring in the Rock to job for Punk? Now, does Rocky need the belt, no. But, really, you let him job to Punk? Why? Where is the logic in that? And who gives a s**t if he isn't on TV every week or the pay per views? Overall, who is going to be the bigger draw/ratings bump as the champ, Punk or the Rock? This isn't rocket science. Who would put more asses in the seats at WM, Punk or Rock? Especially, in the main event? The fans would go ape s**t over a Rock victory. To be sure, the internet wrestling community loves them some CM Punk (I met the guy at WM 25, he is a royal a*****e; in fact, I wasn't the only one that thought so, either), but the larger wrestling fan base loves the Rock.

Because putting the longest reigning champion over a Hollywood "icon" would do that much more for Punk.. the Rock doesn't need wins anymore, and he clearly doesn't need the championship. Not going to argue about popularity, but if WWE didn't have Punk right now they would be in more trouble than they already are..

Originally posted by Paul:

Originally posted by fropwns:
Here is my thing, why do you bring in the Rock to job for Punk? Now, does Rocky need the belt, no. But, really, you let him job to Punk? Why? Where is the logic in that? And who gives a s**t if he isn't on TV every week or the pay per views? Overall, who is going to be the bigger draw/ratings bump as the champ, Punk or the Rock? This isn't rocket science. Who would put more asses in the seats at WM, Punk or Rock? Especially, in the main event? The fans would go ape s**t over a Rock victory. To be sure, the internet wrestling community loves them some CM Punk (I met the guy at WM 25, he is a royal a*****e; in fact, I wasn't the only one that thought so, either), but the larger wrestling fan base loves the Rock.

Because putting the longest reigning champion over a Hollywood "icon" would do that much more for Punk.. the Rock doesn't need wins anymore, and he clearly doesn't need the championship. Not going to argue about popularity, but if WWE didn't have Punk right now they would be in more trouble than they already are..

Totally agree with the notion that the WWE has a problem without Punk. I'm not sure if Punk, frankly, needs to beat the Rock. He needs to beat Austin. That seems more like a true passing of the torch moment. And something that they keep teasing between the two. You never know, it may be that Lesnar attempts to interfere at Rumble, out of no where, Austin comes out stuns Lesnar, stuns Rock, stuns Punk, and drinks a few beers and he is gone. Meanwhile, the match resumes, Rock gets the pin. Punk blames Austin, which leads to a match down the line (possibly this year's mania).

And, I do not agree that Punk is the longest reigning champ; it is a convenient ploy, ala the Ryback nonsense, or cheap trick to generate a negative buzz around him. This is a shame because Punk doesn't need it. Its as if the WWE believes it still has to build him up or something. Build him for what? The man, like him or not, is made. He is an excellent heel, a multiple-time champion, and has beaten the best the industry has. Just because I think he is a major douche, even I have to tell you the guy is must see.

To me, you need to build someone else, build Rhodes, build Ziegler, build Kingston (who had an excellent program with Orton years back--enough of this intercontinental/US champ/tag title b******t), build a new Undertaker/Kane character (its time guys, they are both way up there in age), and move on.

Part of the reason I no longer watch and just read the highlights is because it is the same s**t it has been for years. Granted, wrestling has its swings in popularity, but right now, it is just awful to watch. It should tell you something that they must keep teasing guys from the Attitude era to generate a buzz. Ryback deserves some credit for creating excitement, but just like all of Vince's monsters, he is being brought back down to earth.

Originally posted by fropwns:
Totally agree with the notion that the WWE has a problem without Punk. I'm not sure if Punk, frankly, needs to beat the Rock. He needs to beat Austin. That seems more like a true passing of the torch moment. And something that they keep teasing between the two. You never know, it may be that Lesnar attempts to interfere at Rumble, out of no where, Austin comes out stuns Lesnar, stuns Rock, stuns Punk, and drinks a few beers and he is gone. Meanwhile, the match resumes, Rock gets the pin. Punk blames Austin, which leads to a match down the line (possibly this year's mania).

And, I do not agree that Punk is the longest reigning champ; it is a convenient ploy, ala the Ryback nonsense, or cheap trick to generate a negative buzz around him. This is a shame because Punk doesn't need it. Its as if the WWE believes it still has to build him up or something. Build him for what? The man, like him or not, is made. He is an excellent heel, a multiple-time champion, and has beaten the best the industry has. Just because I think he is a major douche, even I have to tell you the guy is must see.

To me, you need to build someone else, build Rhodes, build Ziegler, build Kingston (who had an excellent program with Orton years back--enough of this intercontinental/US champ/tag title b******t), build a new Undertaker/Kane character (its time guys, they are both way up there in age), and move on.

Part of the reason I no longer watch and just read the highlights is because it is the same s**t it has been for years. Granted, wrestling has its swings in popularity, but right now, it is just awful to watch. It should tell you something that they must keep teasing guys from the Attitude era to generate a buzz. Ryback deserves some credit for creating excitement, but just like all of Vince's monsters, he is being brought back down to earth.

It's the downside of having year long champs. You go back to the Attitude era and when Austin was either preoccupied with Vince or hurt WWE was able to build stars off of each other. Rock, Mankind, Triple H.

Punk's rise as a Main Eventer would have been a perfect time to elevate someone not named John Cena to rival him. Instead you get forgettable feuds with Ziggler, Jericho and Bryan. They gain nothing from it and have to wait for John Cena to put them over.

You look at TLC it's going to be Punk v Ryback in a Tables Match. You don't think Ryback can get major momentum by taking Punk and the Shield (the group that attacking him right now) out? Ryback ends Punk's streak and it instantly establishes as him a credible force.

Originally posted by fropwns:

Originally posted by btthepunk:
Despite that report, I still fully expect Rock to win the title at Royal Rumble.

Here is my thing, why do you bring in the Rock to job for Punk? Now, does Rocky need the belt, no. But, really, you let him job to Punk? Why? Where is the logic in that? And who gives a s**t if he isn't on TV every week or the pay per views? Overall, who is going to be the bigger draw/ratings bump as the champ, Punk or the Rock? This isn't rocket science. Who would put more asses in the seats at WM, Punk or Rock? Especially, in the main event? The fans would go ape s**t over a Rock victory. To be sure, the internet wrestling community loves them some CM Punk (I met the guy at WM 25, he is a royal a*****e; in fact, I wasn't the only one that thought so, either), but the larger wrestling fan base loves the Rock.

lets say rock wins the title...

he jobs to cena at wm? cena is already established, losing to rock didn't even make a difference to cena.

WM or any show for that matter is already going to be a big draw regardless of whether rock is champ or not

Originally posted by ads_2006:
lets say rock wins the title...

he jobs to cena at wm? cena is already established, losing to rock didn't even make a difference to cena.

WM or any show for that matter is already going to be a big draw regardless of whether rock is champ or not

It's going to be big no matter what but how big is determined by how interested people are. It doesn't make much sense to bring in Rock and Lesnar in and then waste them on mid card rematches. You're just not going to generate interest by selling a product people have already seen with no twist to it at all. Rock Cena 2 for the belt is at least telling people the stakes have been raised. Not that I'm for Rock Cena 2.

To me I think it should be obvious. The second Brock Lesnar was brought in it's Brock v streak. Rock's championship run has been teased since the day after Mania. Why you would want to go against that is beyond me.

I actually think Wrestling is fairly decent now.. it will never be perfect, but I like it for what it is. Sure the writing is somewhat inconsistent but since 2010 when Nexus stormed Raw and messed it all up, I think it's been on the upswing. Wrestling is just not that popular anymore and UFC has risen up quite a bit... I do not know if there will again be a huge boom like we saw in the 90s, but I am optimistic & appreciate what we have as a fan.

Punk's rise as a top star.. the return of some huge names, a much better tag team division etc.. leaves me hope

Originally posted by ads_2006:

Originally posted by fropwns:

Originally posted by btthepunk:
Despite that report, I still fully expect Rock to win the title at Royal Rumble.

Here is my thing, why do you bring in the Rock to job for Punk? Now, does Rocky need the belt, no. But, really, you let him job to Punk? Why? Where is the logic in that? And who gives a s**t if he isn't on TV every week or the pay per views? Overall, who is going to be the bigger draw/ratings bump as the champ, Punk or the Rock? This isn't rocket science. Who would put more asses in the seats at WM, Punk or Rock? Especially, in the main event? The fans would go ape s**t over a Rock victory. To be sure, the internet wrestling community loves them some CM Punk (I met the guy at WM 25, he is a royal a*****e; in fact, I wasn't the only one that thought so, either), but the larger wrestling fan base loves the Rock.

lets say rock wins the title...

he jobs to cena at wm? cena is already established, losing to rock didn't even make a difference to cena.

WM or any show for that matter is already going to be a big draw regardless of whether rock is champ or not

They are building Punk up to be the #1 guy above cena, so I'm excepecting punk to be in either the main event or feature match of all of the ppv's leading up to wrestlemania, it might end up being streak vs streak against taker

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
lets say rock wins the title...

he jobs to cena at wm? cena is already established, losing to rock didn't even make a difference to cena.

WM or any show for that matter is already going to be a big draw regardless of whether rock is champ or not

It's going to be big no matter what but how big is determined by how interested people are. It doesn't make much sense to bring in Rock and Lesnar in and then waste them on mid card rematches. You're just not going to generate interest by selling a product people have already seen with no twist to it at all. Rock Cena 2 for the belt is at least telling people the stakes have been raised. Not that I'm for Rock Cena 2.

To me I think it should be obvious. The second Brock Lesnar was brought in it's Brock v streak. Rock's championship run has been teased since the day after Mania. Why you would want to go against that is beyond me.

wouldnt be hard building that





6:00 mutual friend has to be vince

Nice interviews. Respectful and intelligent questions.