Ye I just don't have the investment a lot of you lot do. My memory of wrestling is having sky in the early 2000s and getting home from lacrose matches (very british of me?) and football to watch the end of shows. I had a lot of older friends as a kid and the late 90s was a bit past me. I loved Benoit, Kane, Mysterio and Eddie Guerrero but I loved los guerreros.

An example of this is Taker to me is dead man walking which was meh. Lesnar was a badass heel and ruined that one legged guy who I thought was mental because he could wrestle with one leg. I have strangely good memories of Flair with the whole evolution thing and Randy Orton was new and interesting. I think I was legitimately spoiled with great weekly wrestling with no effort from a UK perspective as a kid.

If we take the cabana podcast at face value punk understands the business and logical booking better than any wrestler out there and that’s just as valuable as the skills he brings to the table (which are still substantial)

Jericho’s value to AEW is as a name draw who can still go who can get people over. Punk would be the same. AEW needs names you come for that build the names you stay for and there aren’t many of those out there

SRM, you're talking about bringing in people that are ages 38, 40, and 39.

If the plan is to bring in big names that are old and well past their prime (I don't think two of those have wrestled in 3 years?) then the dream is already dead and we might as well just call it TNA2.


Note I say this as probably the biggest Punk apologist on the forum.

Yes, but I’m not talking about bringing them in to build AEW around them, I’m talking about using them to bring eyes onto an aspiring competitive product to a status quo that is in a current ratings nose dive

If you’re bringing them in to be on top of AEW and not establish new talent then ya, it’s over

Also, Harper asked for and was denied his release so that's not possible.

I mean I guess this is possible, but Punk gets very little hate around here as far as I can tell. He seems like an insufferable prick, but I'd love to watch him go again if he ever gets another urge to wrestle, and I assume that just about every reg in the forum would mark out for his return.

Not buying this notion of Ambrose being booked horribly, by the way. He got a strong push and a ton of spotlight despite being a very meh in-ring guy. He was WWE Champion. You could sub the word "Barrett" in for "Ambrose" and this post would be 100% correct, but Ambrose is way down the list of guys who got victimized by the WWE.

Hell, for some reason, despite it being very much known that he was going, he was the very rare one who didn't get buried into oblivion on the way out, and in fact he was given an amazing send-off for a guy who was just leaving rather than retiring. That plays a large part in him still being so strong today.

On a relative WWE scale, the company was pretty damn good to him.

I totally understand what you mean.

I guess my thinking is just that it'd be one thing if we were talking about The Rock or John Cena, but nobody outside of wrestling knows who Wade Barrett or Luke Harper are and the only ones that know CM Punk know him for being a UFC sideshow. So I think the goal is to carve away some of the WWE audience that are displeased, build you product up, and then take it to the next level by having someone transcend the sport and break into mainstream.

If that is indeed the goal, doing that with people that are 38, 39, and 40 makes it hard. Barrett and Harper were midcard jobbers to that audience you're after. Punk hasn't been around for over 5 years and half of them probably don't even remember him.

Jericho, while older, was a massive star who was still doing great work and has crossover appeal with Fozzy. That's the type of signing you're talking about that I can get behind.

I think the best plan is to be selective with your pickups. If you think Dean Ambrose was a big deal then I get that one. He had a lot of fans and is only 33 so that's still a lot in the tank to build around. Hopefully I'm wrong and it was ****ty writing making him phone it in for years and he crushes it. Wait out the contracts of a few people that are still young, are frustrated, move merchandise already, and are talented.

Lapping up all the older, midcard WWE people and building around them is something that we've seen tried before. It doesn't work.

I recall during his UFC run having to defend the idea of doing something you want to do even if you might suck at it and how I think we shouldn't be ripping on people so hard for that, but you're right. This forum is definitely one of the most friendly to him.

I would also love to see him return and would be marking out as well. I just struggle to see that as being the best direction for a new company to take.

I do think that there were some people who hated on him for leaving, which is truly absurd. I thought people were pretty supportive of his quixotic UFC thing, but I guess I could have missed something there.

To be abundantly clear, when I say that he seems unlikable, 0% of it is attributable to these decisions. I respect him up and leaving on WWE and also him chasing another dream that he didn't turn out to be successful at.

You realise Punk being in the UFC is purely because of who he is in wrestling right? Not the other way around.

I've sat down with friends of mine who regularly watch UFC PPVs and had to explain why he's even on the card and they do not get it at all. He is a nobody in contact sports and they have done nothing but detriment his appeal as a wrestler.

I 100% agree that Luke Harper isn't a draw outside of indie fans. He is however legitimately great in the ring and you only have to watch the most recent access to see that. So he's not the draw but he is what keeps fans watching. Strange to see the hate when he is what you guys should love.

IMO there are very few wrestlers who would be significantly hurt by being buried in UFC like Punk was. Brock would be one who would be. After that, umm, Meng circa 1996 would be another?

Most in wrestling aren't being buoyed by any perception of being legit tough guys. Most, at least around here, did not respond to Punk's venture into UFC with anything resembling "OMG he's gonna kill it." Most were not surprised that he got destroyed.

Yeah, I never got the hate for leaving either. Someone finally stood up to Vince about the ****ty medical handling of talent and walked and that's when they turn on someone? Especially the concussion stuff. It's weird how some people just refuse to see something responsible for their hobby to do any wrong and will turn on anyone who bails on it.

I also get people that dislike him on a personal level. I truthfully don't think he'd be someone I enjoyed hanging out with myself.


Yeah. I don't think he brings a lot of eyes outside of wrestling or has any cross appeal. So the idea of bringing him in to be one of your big guys when he's 40 and hasn't wrestled in 5 years seems like not the best direction to me.

You are missing the point, you get why Punk is on the PPV he's CM Punk, you aren't expecting anything.

To people who have no idea about wrestling it's the exact opposite. Who's this guy? Ohh he's a wrestler. Ohh he's awful and gets **** on, well wrestling is fake, what'd you expect? Then legitimately hard wrestlers like Swagger don't get that push to the masses and have to prove himself, yet when he looses it'll be to pretty legit people but that's still a burial to him.

edit - This is to posts above not the most recent ones.

I think you're either misunderstanding what I'm meaning or I'm not saying it properly.

1. I think Luke Harper is a good wrestler. I enjoy watching Luke Harper wrestle.

2. I don't think a new company trying to "change the world" with a stated goal of being direct competition to WWE should be bringing in 39 year old midcard WWE cast offs. We had an entire handful of years where a company tried that route and it tanked.

I believe both #1 and #2 to be true. My personal enjoyment and what I think is best for a new company are not the exact same.

I don't think booked poorly is the right way to phrase it for the reasons you mentioned, but it's also clear they didn't get everything they could out of him. His character often felt hamstrung and they were reluctant to make him the true top guy (even though he was possibly the most over in the company for awhile) because they want their champs to be corporate-friendly guys who can do mainstream publicity etc.

Moxley is a massive get for AEW. I think he's going to thrive in a less corporate and rigid environment, he can do more hardcore **** to hide some of his limitations in the ring, and he's going to bring character and storytelling which is the biggest thing they're going to need on TV. Plus it legitimizes the company that a top WWE guy walked out on them for AEW.

RE: Punk, I think there is still tons of goodwill there for wrestling fans and he would be a huge draw. But I don't get the sense he's interested in wrestling again on that kind of a platform.

I think it's a deeply stupid criticism, but I won't go so far as to say I don't understand it. People don't like their source of joy and entertainment being taken away. People cling to baseless notions that their favorite players should stay with their favorite team, but wouldn't hesitate to jump from Staples to Office Depot if the latter made a better offer than the former. They justify this wild hypocrisy on the irrelevant basis that the person is making millions either way.

Obviously it has nothing to do with principle or anything of the sort in the way they like to represent that it does. They're losing their ability to be entertained by the person in the way that they're used to, so it's tantrum time. Alas, people of all ages are children.

I think there is a big difference in the idea that AEW is filling up on meh midcarders for the sake of it and signing genuinely great wrestlers who are in the midcard of other brands (lower really). I think someone like Tye Dillinger, who I like, is a better example of this type of idea. Whereas people like Harper, Revival are all very good. I don't think that them going to another promotion automatically means they get booked to their best, etc either. Just more freedom to put on good matches.

Ambrose was always the afterthought after Roman and Seth. The times he got pushes were because he was the best worst option as everyone else was injured and when they got back he was put back in his place.

I genuinely think Amrbose will be awesome in AEW and I think Harper would be a great wrestler in the promotion.

Wwe’s failing, among other things, is that rather than build a sustainable ecosystem that generates top stars they put all their focus into megapushing (by design anyway) 1 guy and building ppvs around 40 year olds and Bork. The end result is an enormous vacuum where an upper mid card churning out new main event talent should be

To have that you need credible names that are willing to put over the next up and coming main eventer to give that push legitimacy. Put punk at the head of an evolution/shield style stable and watch it work. Give punk a 5 year reign as AEW champ and watch it die

Cannot +1 this enough. Of all the theories of backstage stuff, the one I believe the most was how when Rocky left for Hollywood Vince decided he was never gonna let another star that he built walk away and make other people boatloads of money. So he shifted to picking his one guy that he knew wasn't going anywhere and everything became about how to make that guy look the best.

I guess my biggest hangup with your idea is a fear that the "40 year olds for nostalgia" mentality would be seeping in. There are certainly ways to use those people well I just haven't seen it be done in so long that I want to avoid it entirely I guess.

It's weird to me though because people don't riot when Kobe retires or actors stop making movies. People flipped out this time though.

You're of course correct though. I myself have fallen victim to being a tantrum wielding baby from time to time.

Retirement is a different thing. People accept that everyone eventually runs out of gas and goes the way of the dinosaur.

Punk plainly still had something in the tank. When an athlete still has something in the tank, dammit they owe it to me to forge ahead in exactly the way I'm comfortable with until they've truly given every last drop.

The movie thing probably doesn't translate as well because very few actors stage a dramatic public retirement, and even if they do then a large number of them will just show back up in future movies anyway, and the movie-watching public knows that.

I read the "dammit" sentence in vinces voice and laughed

You're right though. Actor one doesn't really hold up at all