The first thing that should be addressed when discussing
this subject is whether or not it’s a work (that is, something fabricated by
WWE as part of storylines but presented as being legitimate1). That
this even needs mentioning does not reflect well on WWE’s current product.
Wrestling fans are always going to have an interest in what’s going on behind
the scenes, but right now that’s the primary focus for many people following
WWE. Punk and the perceived burial of Daniel Bryan are of more interest than
the supposed lead plot that is the return of Batista. WWE have been getting a
lot of things right for the last year or so but presenting compelling lead
storylines has not always been among them.
 |
| Maybe he can change things from his couch |
Personally I think the Punk situation is real. It could
be a plot but then you’d have to ask who would benefit from it. And the answer
to that would be nobody. Punk’s character is already well established as
someone who’ll speak his mind and stand up for what he believes in. Pretending
he’s walked out would do nothing to enhance that. In fact he noted (when he
returned from his mishandled worked walkout in 2011) that he couldn’t change
WWE from his couch. Storyline Punk is someone who wants to be a part of the
show because he wants to make a difference.
WWE wouldn’t benefit from the worked shoot approach
either. It’s not a question of having done it before: repetition never stops
them doing anything. It’s more the fact that the period between January and
late March-early April is the time of year at which they enjoy they’re highest
viewing figures thanks to WrestleMania. A storyline walkout is something that
would generally be held off for a quieter time of year when it could be more of
a talking point on TV with more time dedicated to it. The addition of Batista
and Brock Lesnar to RAW, and the imminent return of The Undertaker and possibly
Hulk Hogan, will make RAW a packed weekly show and there won’t be the time to
present the story of a man quitting in the way it needs to be to have the
desired impact.
So, yeah, I think it’s real. Which makes the next
question how will WWE address Punk’s absence? To get an answer to that we could
try looking to ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin’s walkout in 2002 because on the
surface it’s a similar situation. WWE’s response was to have The Rock cut a
scathing promo about Austin “taking his ball” and going home. That could
indicate that WWE will have someone acknowledge Punk’s absence in a promo. The
frontrunners there would probably be Triple H, as lead antagonist, Kane, as the
man who was seemingly going to face Punk at Elimination Chamber, and Batista,
if WWE decided to do what could be considered the sensible thing and turn him
into a bad guy, aligning him with the crowd’s reactions to him. Randy Orton is
said to have made a comment along the lines of “If at first you don’t succeed…
quit” over the last week so perhaps he’ll do the honours. That would seem
unlikely though. The preference has been to present ‘The Viper’ as generally
ineffective over the last several months.
In actuality I don’t think the Punk and Austin situations
are that similar. Austin had a very specific reason for going home: he didn’t
want to lose a match to Brock Lesnar on RAW with no build-up to it (a stance I
completely understand). If we are to believe the rumours Punk has no such gripe,
he’s just generally fed up. There’s also WrestleMania on the horizon now,
something which was around ten months away when Austin left. As troublesome and
irritating to deal with as he probably is CM Punk is one of the biggest names
WWE has under contract. Those in charge would want to work out differences with
him to ensure he appears on the card. They may not have planned to have him
wrestle in a top match, but that’s how WWE, and wrestling in general operates.
There are only so many slots available on even the biggest of events and not
everyone can be in a huge match. Having all the big names on the bill and
omitting lesser regulars creates the feeling that a show’s special, and that’s
something WWE are always very keen to do with ‘Mania.
If I had to guess (which I don’t, but I will) I’d say
Punk’s absence will be acknowledged on RAW before Elimination Chamber, because
it would be strange for a major name to simply stop appearing. I’d expect some
generally heelish, snarky remarks, especially if it’s Triple H delivering the
“news”, but an undisguised burial of Punk would surprise me. If they want to
re-sign him to a contract in the summer, and they absolutely will want that,
and have him appear at WrestleMania they won’t be able to trash him. That would
risk making the situation worse and, in theory, devalue him. Why do that to
someone you’re hoping to rely on to attract viewers to an important, landmark
event?
If the situation is genuine and Punk doesn’t return I
don’t think we’ll see him wrestle elsewhere. He’s stated in interviews that he’s
financially secure and the rumour that he’s claimed to be burnt out would
indicate that he wants to step away from the grind of working matches for a
while. Should this prove incorrect I think matches in New Japan, the second
biggest wrestling company in the world, or EVOLVE, where his old boss Gabe
Sapolsky works are likeliest (and even EVOLVE seems far-fetched). Ring of Honor’s
a possibility but there have been a lot of changes in the nine years since Punk
last worked there. Anyone saying that Punk wants to leave WWE to go to TNA has
been smoking funny cigarettes.
For the most part I agree with Punk’s walkout, assuming
the rumoured reasons for it are true. But I say this as much because I’ve been
bored with his character since last summer as for anything else. Although that’s
not to say he’s earned time off, because he has. Punk hasn’t been used well since
his programme with Undertaker ended (his stuff with Heyman didn’t reach its
full potential in my view) and the best thing the Punk character, and Punk the
man, can do is take an extended break, returning when there are new people for
him to face. His absence at WrestleMania would be noticeable but his
participation isn’t necessary for the show’s success. There will be enough big
names on offer with or without his involvement. He absolutely deserves to
wrestle on the show, but WWE aren’t denying him that chance. He’s denying it to
himself, and for reasons I can understand. But his absence will give WWE and
other wrestlers the chance to raise some statuses. If I had the choice of that
action being taken or watching CM Punk wrestle I’d pick the new names every
single time. WWE’s future requires new marketable stars, not nicely wrestled
matches featuring CM Punk.
***
1 It would be more accurate to say “worked
shoot” but, honestly, who cares?
No comments:
Post a Comment