TBQH, I was thinking about it more, and I logged on to post this pretty much:
Quote:
Originally Posted by He-Man
I think Punk is completely justified in my opinion.
The WWE are obviously well within their right to push whoever they want.....whether that's Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, or part-time wrestlers that show up once in a blue moon such as The Rock, Lesnar, or a 45 year old washed up Batista.
On the flip side - CM Punk is well within his right to do what he wants if he feels that the direction of the company and/or his character is not to his standards.
Why shouldn't Punk be pissed if it actually is the WWE's intention long term to push a guy like Dave Batista ahead of himself?
|
When Rock came back and fought Cena, that had the allure of "a match we thought we'd never see, two eras" thing. And it went on to do the best numbers in history for that event. When Punk is given the longest reign in the modern era, only for it to be ended by a guy who is a mega star, and who made him look like a million bucks in the process I wasn't mad. Also, transitional champ to put the belt on Cena without us having to get Cena/Punk yet again. So now you get a repeat of the same main event from the previous year, face vs face, no one can be hurt by a loss, and your top guy gets the belt back to start the year off right.
Having Brock come and say "oh im the number one contender" and THEN have Batista show up on Raw after 4 years, then have him walk in at the end of the Rumble and win it, to main event against Orton, when you have a guy like Daniel Bryan who is so white hot right now...that's what I'm not getting. I get the business part of everything, but Batista vs Orton for the main event of Mania is not major for Wrestlemania XXX, and if Punk is fed up with the direction of creative as well as the booking of some of the part time guys, I completely understand.