Is Punk More of the New Rock Than a New Austin?

[The Scarred One]

This thread is to discuss whether CM Punk is more of a new Rock as opposed to a new Stone Cold Steve Austin. Not in terms of character, as Punk fits the antihero role that Austin had back in the day, but rather in terms of position in the company.

Back during the Attitude Era, Austin was the face of the WWE while the Rock was second banana. Even though they were both extremely popular and sold the most merchandise during this time, Austin, to me at least, had the edge over the Rock.

Right now, John Cena and CM Punk are the two top guys in the WWE. John Cena is considered the face of the WWE, but people have been making the case that CM Punk could eventually take his place ever. Currently, Punk is the current WWE Champion while Cena is currently feuding with Kane. Going into WrestleMania, Punk is expected to feud with Chris Jericho for the WWE Championship while Cena will have a dream match with the Rock.

Now Punk's reign as champion and tenure as a main eventer has come into question to the point where he's getting the blame for low television ratings. I think the blame is more on the overall product, not the champion. If the WWE did more in regards to creating a better show, than the ratings might improve.

I've been a CM Punk fan ever since I first heard about him in Ring of Honor, but I can't help but feel that as long as Cena is in the WWE, Punk will never really be the top guy.

But what do you guys think? Can Punk find a way to become the top guy in the WWE? Or will he eventually be remembered as the Rock to Cena's Austin?

 

[Carpathian Florist]

I don't really think it is Cena's fault that Punk is stuck at number 2.
To become huge you have to appeal to and draw in the casual fan. I guess I count as a casual fan because I only really watch segments that include wrestlers I am still interested in, which is basically Kane at the moment. I've seen bits and pieces of Punk's work, I was massively interested in him during the Straight Edge Society era but not so much since. I think it is his personal appeal that prevents him from taking over that top spot. Austin was just a complete bad ass who mauled people and did whatever the hell he wanted, Rock was an arrogant, asshole jock. A bit of a meathead, but with an incredible brain on him. To me CM Punk comes across as a bit of a nerd or geeky character. He's studied all the moves, knows all the techniques but he just doesn't have that fire in him where you think he's gonna all out destroy his opponent and completely dominate. He just comes across as a bit of student type, the geek made good kinda thing.

That's just me and my taste though.

 

[Radio GaGa]

Just to be clear, if we look at way of promos, CM Punk is clearly Steve Austin, while the Rock, if pushed in the right way could be...

Dolph Ziggler

[youtube]http://youtu.be/OFuMnysRHE4?t=2m15s[/youtube]

He's starting to look like this on TV too.

 

[gwarren]

He's neither, he's Punk and Cena is Cena, stop trying to compare these guys to old stars because it doesn't matter if you like it or not, there's not gonna be another Rock. There's not gonna be another Austin. These guys have to make a name for themselfs.

 

[The Scarred One]

He's neither, he's Punk and Cena is Cena, stop trying to compare these guys to old stars because it doesn't matter if you like it or not, there's not gonna be another Rock. There's not gonna be another Austin. These guys have to make a name for themselfs.

I'm not comparing Punk and Cena to Rock and Austin character-wise. What I meant is Cena is the top guy in the WWE, just like Austin and Hogan were during their respective times. And I'm suggesting that Punk may be more like the Rock in terms of playing second fiddle in the company. It's called an analogy.

 

[ilapierre]

My opinion is that Punk will always play second fiddle to whoever is number one in the company. Right now CM Punk is like the new Roddy Piper (nowhere near as entertaining though) or Jake the Snake Roberts who actually got a title push. He's an intriguing character with a ton of potential but it doesn't really translate well since he's small and doesn't look right wearing the strap. Capathian Florist basically summed up how I feel about CM Punk. The Rock and Stone Cold, no offence to the very mic talented Punk, look and act like real men. Quoting Kevin Nash who was spot on with his assessment, CM Punk looks like a "short order cook from a waffle house." Jake Roberts looked like a bar stool drunk compared to Hogan yet Roberts had some potential that wasn't properly tapped into. Punk represents the push a guy like Roberts didn't get. I'd even say he's more comparable to Raven who in the late 90s could have had a bigger push. Punk's highly entertaining in today's extremely stale climate of carbon copy wannabe wrestling entertainers. WWE wrestlers today are like carbon copy alternative rock or boy bands badly impersonating Nirvana or the Backstreet Boys of 20 years ago. CM Punk is more original and is the alternative to all the crap and comes across larger than life to the smarks and wrestling obsessed because of the staleness. Problem is he'd be nothing more than an average talent in the late 90s, slightly more interesting than most lightweights from that period.

So to answer the OP's question, he's nothing like The Rock or Steve Austin. Austin and Rock, in my opinion, shared the number one spot. Sure, Austin got better #1 treatment but they were both larger than life. Cena and Punk are far from 'larger than life'. Punk's like Jake Roberts and somebody's gotta 3:16 his ass and turn wrestling around. Cause a skinny little tattooed guy surrounded by no names who mean nothing isn't making me want to tune in. Cena will always be bigger than Punk, Cena has more cred as he actually had the chance to work with a lot more legends. Another thing: Austin and Rock were only the face of WWE from 1999-2002. That is not a long period of time. In 2002-2003, it was Hogan, Trips and Shawn. After that it was basically Evolution, Shawn and Cena till now. Cena has basically been the face of WWE longer than anyone even Hulk Hogan. We all bash Hogan but no one in the history of wrestling besides Bruno Sammartino and Lou Thez has had the main event longevity of Triple H and Cena. Cena is more like Hogan and Punk is more like Savage, so in that way, yes, Punk will always be #2 no matter how many times he beats Cena. I'd say Cena is most comparable to Bob Howdy Doody Backlund and CM Punk is more like a lesser version of Roddy Piper who never got to beat Backlund to wear the title strap. There needs to be a guy as big as Hogan or Austin to wipe both of them off the map to kickstart wrestling. It'd be awesome to see Cena disappear for a few years and come back in the heel role of "Psycho" Bob Backlund to get 'his' title back. As for Punk, if he ever wanted to be Piper he wouldn't need the title. Punk has a bit of Piper potential but he'll never realize it if wrestling doesn't turn around. He's not the one to turn it around and he's certainly not the one to blame for the poor ratings either. The blame is on brass: those who sign talent, write the storylines and spends too much time worrying about the business side of things (McMahon-Helmsley era folks). Can't blame Punk, but you can sure blame Steph and Triple H. These two and their vision, embodied by what we see in the ring each week, is about as watchable and laughable as Kamala the Ugandan Giant's career.

 

[TechnicalMessiah]

Punk wants more attention right? well he needs to make sure he gets it, attack superstars, drop more pipebombs, maybe vandalise Del Rio's cars.What im saying is WWE needs another rouge superstar, like Auistin and D-X.Either that, or do something original, something nobody is expecting, Maybe accuse Mr. Lourinitis of being a closet homosexual? That'll turn a few heads.

 

[CMSawall]

Spam me if you want...

But..

CM Punk is CM Punk.
The Rock is The Rock.
John Cena is John Cena.
Randy Orton is Randy Orton.
Dolph Ziggler is Dolph Ziggler.


Get my point.

 

[bjarvis]

This might be a little different, and I just might be wanting to go against the grain, but I think Punk is more like Austin and Cena is more Rock.

Austin and Punk are the better wrestlers of the four, and that's nothing against Cena and Rock who when they are allowed to go can put on some damn good matches. Its just that they are so set with their famous move sets or characters, that they are not really allowed to branch out.

Austin and Punk are characters who are anti-establishment, speaking out against authority and bringing up messages that the fans agree with. Cena and Rock are very hard to beat. Didn't Rock take 3 stunners (or 2?), a Rock Bottom and a bunch of chair shots at Mania X7 and we all know what it takes to beat Cena. Whilst Austin and Punk are top dogs and don't lose like a mid-carder does, they are not Supermen.

Just my opinion. The only difference is Cena has held the top spot for about 7 years now (which I believe Rock really only held from 2000-2001, and the brief time he returned in 2002), and Austin held it for 3 straight years. Punk is definitely the number 2 of the 2.

 

[Jenna.]

Lol The Rock was never second fiddle to Austin...maybe when he first started getting popular, but after that he pretty much shared number 1 with Austin even surpassing him at one point.

With that said CM Punk is CM PUnk as awesome as he is, he's nowhere near the level of Austin or Rocky.

 

[Why Always Me]

Yes he is - because in the end The Rock surpassed Austin and in time CM Punk will surpass Cena.

 

[jbartlett7]

My opinion is that Punk will always play second fiddle to whoever is number one in the company. Right now CM Punk is like the new Roddy Piper (nowhere near as entertaining though) or Jake the Snake Roberts who actually got a title push. He's an intriguing character with a ton of potential but it doesn't really translate well since he's small and doesn't look right wearing the strap. Capathian Florist basically summed up how I feel about CM Punk. The Rock and Stone Cold, no offence to the very mic talented Punk, look and act like real men. Quoting Kevin Nash who was spot on with his assessment, CM Punk looks like a "short order cook from a waffle house." Jake Roberts looked like a bar stool drunk compared to Hogan yet Roberts had some potential that wasn't properly tapped into. Punk represents the push a guy like Roberts didn't get. I'd even say he's more comparable to Raven who in the late 90s could have had a bigger push. Punk's highly entertaining in today's extremely stale climate of carbon copy wannabe wrestling entertainers. WWE wrestlers today are like carbon copy alternative rock or boy bands badly impersonating Nirvana or the Backstreet Boys of 20 years ago. CM Punk is more original and is the alternative to all the crap and comes across larger than life to the smarks and wrestling obsessed because of the staleness. Problem is he'd be nothing more than an average talent in the late 90s, slightly more interesting than most lightweights from that period.

So to answer the OP's question, he's nothing like The Rock or Steve Austin. Austin and Rock, in my opinion, shared the number one spot. Sure, Austin got better #1 treatment but they were both larger than life. Cena and Punk are far from 'larger than life'. Punk's like Jake Roberts and somebody's gotta 3:16 his ass and turn wrestling around. Cause a skinny little tattooed guy surrounded by no names who mean nothing isn't making me want to tune in. Cena will always be bigger than Punk, Cena has more cred as he actually had the chance to work with a lot more legends. Another thing: Austin and Rock were only the face of WWE from 1999-2002. That is not a long period of time. In 2002-2003, it was Hogan, Trips and Shawn. After that it was basically Evolution, Shawn and Cena till now. Cena has basically been the face of WWE longer than anyone even Hulk Hogan. We all bash Hogan but no one in the history of wrestling besides Bruno Sammartino and Lou Thez has had the main event longevity of Triple H and Cena. Cena is more like Hogan and Punk is more like Savage, so in that way, yes, Punk will always be #2 no matter how many times he beats Cena. I'd say Cena is most comparable to Bob Howdy Doody Backlund and CM Punk is more like a lesser version of Roddy Piper who never got to beat Backlund to wear the title strap. There needs to be a guy as big as Hogan or Austin to wipe both of them off the map to kickstart wrestling. It'd be awesome to see Cena disappear for a few years and come back in the heel role of "Psycho" Bob Backlund to get 'his' title back. As for Punk, if he ever wanted to be Piper he wouldn't need the title. Punk has a bit of Piper potential but he'll never realize it if wrestling doesn't turn around. He's not the one to turn it around and he's certainly not the one to blame for the poor ratings either. The blame is on brass: those who sign talent, write the storylines and spends too much time worrying about the business side of things (McMahon-Helmsley era folks). Can't blame Punk, but you can sure blame Steph and Triple H. These two and their vision, embodied by what we see in the ring each week, is about as watchable and laughable as Kamala the Ugandan Giant's career.

Thats ridiculous, 2002-2004, Lesnar was the face of Smackdown, Triple H of Raw. When Lesnar went, thats argubaly when Cena took over. Until the draft where Batista became the face of Smackdown, supported by Rey and Taker, and Cena became the face of Raw, with HBK and Edge the supporting acts.

And in the last few years, the main face has obviously been Cena, but Edge, Orton and even now Punk, have been major players. Orton is the one on the front of the WWE Game, much like it was originally The Rock, then Lesnar, then Triple H, then Cena.

 

[Scofield]

CM Punk is the new CM Punk, any sort of comparison in wrestling is assanine. It's like comparing Apples to Oranges.

 

[theBec2101]

he is neither. CM Punk is CM Punk. The Rock and Austin had thier own ways to do a promo in the attitude era. Austin and Rock pushed the line in there era, now Punk is pushing his lines, to bad it's the PG line. Stop Comparing, you cant. Let Punk be Punk

 

[RJJ]

This might be a little different, and I just might be wanting to go against the grain, but I think Punk is more like Austin and Cena is more Rock.

Austin and Punk are the better wrestlers of the four, and that's nothing against Cena and Rock who when they are allowed to go can put on some damn good matches. Its just that they are so set with their famous move sets or characters, that they are not really allowed to branch out.

Austin and Punk are characters who are anti-establishment, speaking out against authority and bringing up messages that the fans agree with. Cena and Rock are very hard to beat. Didn't Rock take 3 stunners (or 2?), a Rock Bottom and a bunch of chair shots at Mania X7 and we all know what it takes to beat Cena. Whilst Austin and Punk are top dogs and don't lose like a mid-carder does, they are not Supermen.

Just my opinion. The only difference is Cena has held the top spot for about 7 years now (which I believe Rock really only held from 2000-2001, and the brief time he returned in 2002), and Austin held it for 3 straight years. Punk is definitely the number 2 of the 2.

It's called in-ring psychology. The psychology of that match is to build austin as a guy whose desprete to win the title, and willing to do anything to become the champion(He dominated the match) one more time. Rock on the other hand, was built as the proud champion whose willing to "give every drop of sweat, every drop of blood, every ounce of energy" to remain champion. The whole point is to give austin the strap while making rock look strong. Keep in mind both of them were faces going into the match, there was no better way to end the match.

 

[RJJ]

Thats ridiculous, 2002-2004, Lesnar was the face of Smackdown, Triple H of Raw. When Lesnar went, thats argubaly when Cena took over. Until the draft where Batista became the face of Smackdown, supported by Rey and Taker, and Cena became the face of Raw, with HBK and Edge the supporting acts.

And in the last few years, the main face has obviously been Cena, but Edge, Orton and even now Punk, have been major players. Orton is the one on the front of the WWE Game, much like it was originally The Rock, then Lesnar, then Triple H, then Cena.

Even though he was a part time wrestler, rock was the face of the company whenever he was around. 2002 beg' - summerslam 2002, he was clearly THE guy. He made his return a couple of weeks before No Way Out 2003, and..BOOM...Him and Hogan are the main event of that PPV. The night after, he switched to raw, and just like that, him and austin are raw's WM main event(Not HHH and Booker for the title). Goldberg made his debute and it was set, rock-goldberg is the main event of backlash 2003. The funny thing is, not only the whole show was centered around rock at that time, but hhh was like holding a paper title...Rock reached a point in his career that he doesn't need a championship anymore...He became bigger than the titles.

 

[ECW Dan Selby]

He's neither, he's Punk and Cena is Cena, stop trying to compare these guys to old stars because it doesn't matter if you like it or not, there's not gonna be another Rock. There's not gonna be another Austin. These guys have to make a name for themselfs.

I couldn't agree more.

I understand the points the OP's trying to make, but with a title such as this, you're always going to get alot of guys (myself included) belittling the topic, as we're quite fed up with hearing nothing comparisons. They don't even really make any sense, if you properly think about it...

We complain about people not being original, yet we strive for people to be like other people. No wonder the guys in the business get fed up with us lot