I don't think Batista is a bigger deal in wrestling than Daniel Bryan. Far from it. I just think he's a bigger deal with non-fans and people who might be convinced to watch, same with Lesnar.

DB is super-over with the fans. I'm not even arguing that Batista is a house-hold name, but he's definitely done a lot to increase his value to the rest of the world thanks to his movie roles and other stuff. Just like Lesnar became super valuable thanks to his UFC matches. That stuff does factor in.

And if, as some people suggest, Batista going over at Rumble leads to putting over DB even more, then good. I don't know what is planned or unplanned here, but it seems like DB is going to get his due.

That said, the logic behind bringing in Lesnar and Batista makes sense, just like the logic behind bringing back Rock made sense. Would people be responding nearly this much, fans or non-fans, if Sheamus or CM Punk had won the Rumble? Or if Reigns had won?

If DB went in and won the Rumble after losing to Wyatt, I think that would have been a great storyline in and of itself, coming back from defeat to win one of the biggest matches of the year. That said, how long would people be talking about the Rumble? It'd be done and over with and we'd be talking about something else. Batista winning the Rumble has resulted in a greater show of support for Bryan, lots of talk about the Rumble, controversy over Batista, talk about Chamber, more intensity.

Hell, it's gotten ME talking about wrestling and I haven't paid attention for a while now. Seems like a good idea from the standpoint of getting people talking and interested and even, dare I say it...invested in the outcome of the matches.

Punk was just recently the longest reigning champ outside of Bruno. He got the priviledge of working with Taker at mania. He's been in high profile matches with the company's top heels since then, all building to a match with Triple H at mania, which would be the climax of the authority angle, i.e. the biggest angle of the year.

Austin said the right move would have been to try and talk through the problem, rather than just go home. Say WWE doesn't give in to what Punk wants. He should at least work through Wrestlemania anyway. Why? Because he never has to work a day in his life ever again, and it's all thanks to WWE. Yeah, he worked his ass off, and things in the company may not be to his liking, but they paid him ungodly amounts of money.

Maybe I'm old school but I believe that if someone is paying you that kind of money, you act like a professional and do your job. I'm not saying you don't have an opinion, or that you even have to keep it. But at least stay til Mania. Leaving now screws over a lot of people.

If this were The Great Khali stating frustration at the part timers coming in to top spots? Would anybody be arsed?

Dunno why I'm even arguing. Like I said, still leaning towards work.

If it wasn't for the fact that the WWE is run by some of the most corrupt and vicious assholes on the planet, I would pretty much agree with you wholeheartedly.

I'm just speculating on my part, but I'm pretty sure that Punk has vocalized his concerns backstage numerous times.........to deaf ears.

If Punk is being booked to buried by Triple H at Mania (at this stage in their careers), then I'd be pretty pissed as well.

If it's legit, his contract expires July, would be beyond daft not to take the 'Mania bonus money before going home, bitch on twitter till then but get paid at least. Probably 2+2 equals doghouse again though.

I hope you're right.

Punk is one of my favorite wrestlers.

No. Having your babyface main event of WM get booed out of the building isn't a good idea. Nobody is going to convince me of this. There could be possible good things to come out of it as byproducts, but the end does not justify the means. There were plenty of ways everyone could've benefitted instead of the shitstorm that was Rumble.

i wish jeff jerret could start another wrestling company with a tv deal, we need a better tna

True, but on the flip side, it sucks to just push someone to the moon, and then have him return back down to earth a year later.......for no apparent reason. Especially if said wrestler was insanely over with the fans and conducted himself professionally for the most part.

Now all of a sudden, you have Orton being pushed as the #1 heel instead? (i.e. a guy that has had numerous discipline problems, and was pretty much an afterthought for 2 years before his re-push).

Why can a guy like Batista just waltz-in and take a high profile spot?

Again - it's Vince's company and he can do whatever he wants, but the flip side is that CM Punk is an independent contractor.........and he can do whatever the hell he wants as well.

He vocalized his concerns and they gave him a contract with pretty much everything he wanted, made him champion numerous times, and have placed him in main event, high profile programs ever since.

Sounds like he got treated pretty well. Punk just seems like one of those people who are never happy.

He could be booked to win every match he wrestles, beat Bruno's run with the title, and get promised a spot in the HoF as "The Greatest Wrestler Who Ever Lived", and he'd still find something to bitch about.

And yeah, WWE as a corporation are vicious assholes. That didn't just start last Tuesday, and it's never been a secret. Punk knew that when he signed his first contract, so you can't really use that as an excuse.

It has worked just fine with John Cena.

As it relates to Batista however, we don't even know if he'll still be a face by Mania'.

Lot can change.

Wait and see.

Is Batista really so small? Is he really the opposite of a big deal? I would say he was never "great", but he always mattered. His last feud with Cena was actually pretty cool and well received if I remember right. If Cena had left instead of Batista and came back and did the exact same thing would people be complaining?

As for Hogan, he had been gone for years, as had Nash and Hall. They hadn't done anything and were riding on their legitimate past appeal. Few people can compare to Hogan's legendary popularity or his legendary role in wrestling, but it's not inappropriate to compare the two returns. Especially when you realize that Batista certainly does compare to Kevin Nash in terms of ability and star-power.

Not to wrestling fans, but again my point is that each is a big deal in their own right and each happened to find their own niche outside of wrestling. Brock with the prestigious UFC, Batista with various movies. Without any focus testing to point to, I would probably say that Batista is one of the more well known wrestlers in WWE's recent history. People know who he is that don't normally watch wrestling, plus he was a big deal before he left.

If the WWE were to actually use him correctly in his best position (that of the asshole), I dunno, maybe it could make money AND also please the hardcore wrestling fans?

Rumors are pretty reliable in my experience.

If Batista is heel at Mania, it is because they called an audible and not because they planned it that way.

As I said, he didn't really "return back down to earth".

He was in high profile matches with Taker, Jericho, and Lesnar. From there he worked with Ryback, who was just coming off his feud with Cena over the title. Then he and Bryan feuded with the Wyatts and The Shield, the hottest new heels in the company.

Not exactly Sunday Night Heat duty.

yeah that is dumb punk should have waited. now i guess he can fued with jeff hardy in the indys

He had bit parts in movies of varying box office success, a dire MMA career and that's about it. I really don't think Batista brings in any outside fans, maybe bring back a few fans who haven't watched in a while but I doubt anything of significance. He's only been back two weeks so who knows what they really have planned for him though.

Does it really matter?

Who cares if Batista's direction wasn't pre-planned.

Batista was a top star in the WWE and had been away for 4 years. Why wouldn't the WWE see if they could push him as a Top Face?

Back in 2004 - Edge returned from a serious injury after a long layoff, and his character started getting boo'd shortly. The WWE then turned him heel.

In 2007 - Jericho returned after a 2.5 year absence and started getting boo'd shortly afterwards. The WWE turned him heel shortly afterwards as well.

What's wrong with calling an audible if some pre-determined plan goes wrong?

Alright. I'm just saying let's stop acting like they have a master plan. It is very clear that they do not have control of their audience right now. Rumble was a complete disaster. If they get control again, it will be because they regained it with some damage control and not because of any sort of plan. They fucked up. Badly. Which is fine. But to deny that they fucked up badly is just kind of ignoring the problem at this point. Smarks can be right sometimes.

This is what I'm thinking.

I don't know if the WWE staff understands the psychology of the fans, but it seems like the idea of it being a set-up to some extent shouldn't be absolutely dismissed. Either way, I don't see Batista winning at Mania. I also doubt that he would have been facing Orton in the main-event. Fuck, Orton has to lose the title at Chamber just to set up a decent match at Mania.

Here's what I think would have happened, assuming DB wasn't supposed to happen and really was getting depushed.

Batista wins Rumble, turns heel, Orton drops title to (popular face who is not DB). Batista loses at Mania for a happy ending.

If DB wasn't meant for a depush, then it makes sense for Cena, the only other top face to get involved with a non-title feud directly after the Orton deal.

Does anyone really think Batista was meant to be a face when he main-evented Mania?

You can't keep the same guy on top forever though, even Cena got taken out of the title scene for a while, like Fignuts said it wasn't like he was feuding with El Torito.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all here. I just think Punk should have handled it better.

How can you even compare Cena and Punks runs? Cena has been at the very top of the company for ten years and has essentially main evented every Wrestlemania since his rise. Punk hasn't main evented one.

Yeah, but this came out of the end of the Monday Night Wars and was a natural conclusion of it. They hadn't been 'gone', they'd still been at the helm of professional wrestling. Also, Hogan, Nash and Hall were a package deal as the nWo so you can't separate their value.

Well. Then you're not paying attention. It was a disaster. The poll on WWE facebook page was more than a fair sample size and there was 4.5k thumbs up votes and I think 18k thumbs down votes. It was a disaster. Plainly and simply. You're just wrong this time, I'm sorry. There were far more people dissatisfied with this than just Pittsburgh.

Punk should have main evented against John Cena against the Miz. I'll give him that. But that's the only year it makes sense, since Punk vs anyone isn't getting top billing over Cena vs Rock, or even against a Bryan vs Batista/Orton match this year.

guys......you can't have a work when neither of the 2 parties are commenting. if punk Is laying low and wwe isn't acknowledging shit then its not a work.

and besides its pg era and app friendly now the demographic that's catered to does not know what a work is

I like how TNA isn't a viable option to alternate to, even for me, an ex-spoken TNA advocate

Pretty much what Fignuts said. Cena is their Hogan, he'll be pushed ahead of pretty much everyone. Punk has only been a main event level guy for a handful of years, and a few of those featured matches that were guaranteed top billing no matter what. Punk getting dropped out the title picture keeps him fresh, he's still featured prominently though.

You are being really ridiculous. how many people do you know that don't use the internet? Because I know very few. And this wasn't a pwinsider poll. It was a WWE poll. People from all walks of life like the official WWE facebook page. It isn't even close to all smarks. And the margin of people that didn't like it is so vast compared to those that did. Man. I'm sorry. I really like you, but you are just wrong here. It was a complete and utter failure. The guy that is supposed to main event WM as a babyface got viciously booed. A guy that just made his return like a week prior. It was not a good look whatsoever.

Yes, but is is it "best for business?"

Oh. So you can see first hand how many of them aren't smarks, then?

I am bit sad since I came to know about the situation in the early morning. I truly believe that maintaining two separate brands with two heavyweight champions, if done right, would be very beneficial.

I know I was the one who brought up the poll on the podcast, and I try to do better than this, so I apologize. A poll like that is always going to have a greater proportion of negative responses than is actually present in the target population.