‘Punk winning in UFC would have made wrestling a bigger deal’

>>1750252
>Punk winning in UFC would have made wrestling a bigger deal
there are people that believe that??

Did Punk losing his match in the way he did make UFC a bigger deal? Or did it just expose the reality of what happens when you pit a guy with only 2 years of training, a broken body and 37 years of age against a 7 year trained, 20 something healty guy?

This whole deal, not only the fight, but how Punk's story was handled and told, was gonna benefit UFC more than anything anyway, that's why Dana booked it.

How can Punk winning in a fighting sport make, as you said, a "performace art" look better. It makes no sense. Maybe the gullible would've thought "hey Punk's actually a tough guy, maybe those pro-wrestlers guys are actually tough". The thing is good wrestlers are tougher than fighters in other aspects, those are 2 different worlds.

>>1750505
>good wrestlers are tougher than fighters in other aspects

Yeah by being dumb enough to take back and body bumps 300 days a year for Vince's entertainment.

>>1750252
You call it performance art, I call it exploitation.

Nobody who goes into wrestling is anything more than talentless white trash who literally could not hold a job in the real world, they are marks for the business and would eat Vince's shit if he asked them to. And this is how he likes it, carnie culture mixed with corporate culture.

>>1750556
>Yeah by being dumb enough to take back and body bumps 300 days a year for Vince's entertainment.
by that logic fighters are dumb in another way, who's dumber? the wrestler taking bumps more often in a circus act, or the guy getting punched, kicked or getting a knee on the head not so often in a blood sport...

>>1750732
the wrestler taking bumps more often in a circus act, easily.

No insurance, paid less, not seen as legitimate, their name is owned by someone else, theyare exploited by a single man, no negotiation or leverage, no agency, no ability to market themselves or branch out. Their ENTIRE EXISTENCE is to line the pockets of Vince's family.

>>1750749
>not seen as legitimate
legitamete what... fighters? come on, we're past that time already. But yeah, wwe is probably a disgusting working environment.

>>1750786
Legitimate anything. Legitimate athletes, legitimate tough guys, legitimate celebrities. Look at when Rousey or Mayweather appeared on WWE, they are fawned over and made to look stronger and better than the WWE's own wrestlers.

"We'' might be past that time, but the general perception/reality is wrestling is fake. Fake as fuck, and being the champion of the WWE is only seen as an accomplishment by the very small WWE fanbase.

>>1750827
>wrestling is fake

wwe is a TV show, with live spectacles, it's about pro-wrestling, pro-wrestling for the wwe is burried after the 90s. As a TV show it's allowed to be as fake as it's wants to be, as long as it gets viewers and people go to see it. And it has. Don't be sour about it.

>>1750877
I'm not sour about it. I'm just saying nobody thinks Denzel Washington is a legitimate pilot because he was in Flight.

>>1750891
Denzel didn't show any real sign of flying the plane himself, so of course it won't seem legit.
Mandrama is still based on actual wrestling and strikes, they just try to avoid doing damage while performing the moves.

>>1751112
Make up your mind, do people know it's fake or do they think it's real?

People do not take wrestlers as seriously as they take professional fighters. They do not take them seriously as they take actual actors. They do not consider them famous, popular or relevant, because wrestling in 2016 is not popular or relevant.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time negotiating your love of wrestling with the reality of the situation, but being a professional wrestler is a loser's game, you have no power over your destiny or your career and it's, face it, fucking fake. Pat Patterson will book you into the ground if he chooses. At least in boxing or UFC you can knock your opponent out and make yourself famous. And everybody in the world sees this and that's why wrestlers are not seen as legit.

>>1750877
OK, when was the last time WWE was considered good television?

>>1751217
Not that guy, but I'd say somewhere around 1998

>>1751190
That was my first post in this thread fyi just pointing out wrestling is still real to alot of people, the majority being kids which WWE is aimed at these days.

My 13 year old nephew still thinks it's totally legit for example.

>>1751226
Okay, i'm talking about adults. Real people.

Punk winning would have ruined the reputation of the UFC permanently. A 40 year old skinny fat who hasn't fought anyone winning against an actual fighter would be pretty embarassing. WWE would get nothing either way but a bit of exposure.

>>1751234
It would just ruin Gall's career.

>>1751231
Why only adults if the show is aimed at all ages?
UFC is more adult orientated so you can't compare it to mandrama, that's like comparing pan's labyrinth to Wall-E.

>>1751248

I don't even know where to begin responding to this question. Little children are fucking idiots, it doesn't matter what they think.

>>1751264
UFC caters to adults with legit fighters, So naturally it will look legit compared to a family friendly show, unless like I said you take into consideration the age group of mandrama and include children.

I don't know if you're trying to have a fair discussion or just stating the obvious.

File: muhfeelings.jpg (25KB, 480x348px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x348px

>>1751231
>i'm talking about adults. Real people.

>>1751287
I am trying to have a fair discussion.

It doesn't LOOK legit. It IS legit. Depending on the wrestler (most WWE wrestlers), pro wrestling neither looks legit and everybody above 13 KNOWS it is not legit.

This makes UFC and other professional fighters more legit in the eyes of, frankly, everybody, including the owners and operators of WWE.

The fact that an 8 year thinks Dolph Ziggler would beat Mike Tyson or Anthony Johnson in a legit fight doesn't mean Ziggler is legit.

>>1751300
>pro wrestling neither looks legit and everybody above 13 KNOWS it is not legit.
That's why I included all age groups because without that you're just stating the obvious.

>>1751287
UFC caters to adults but it's super popular with children because it's, surprise, real. Kids like seeing blood. They like tough guys, they like real shit talkers, they like real violence and can tell the difference.

>>1751311
Is this autism?

>>1751312
Sure, almost everything is popular with kids. My point was it doesn't cater to them. Whereas WWE caters to everyone.
>>1751316
No need to meme because you don't want to include children into your argument, a demographic WWE heavily relies on.

>>1751311
Hey man, if you would rather be broke after 20 years of taking back bumps 300 days a year with no health insurance and have to do indie shows in bingo halls when you're 60 to pay your medical bills go ahead and be a pro wrestler.

If you want to fight twice a year, be rich as fuck, quit when you want, been seen as a legitimate competitor and athlete and have a chance to make a hundred million dollars, be wildly respected around the world and be a celebrity, go take your shot in UFC or boxing.

>>1751320
The question is what is dumber, being a UFC fighter or a WWE wrestler. The question of legitimacy came up.

If you're happy being viewed as a FAKE, while being exploited non-stop and have no agency, go ahead and be a pro wrestler.

I think a lot of people have way too much pride to ever go that route, and I have no doubt many of our favorite wrestlers from back in the day would have done UFC if it was where it was in 1978, 1988 or 1998 and never once considered working for Vince.

Look at Kurt Angle today. He's in worse shape than any UFC fighter.

>>1751320
There was a time when pro wrestling didn't cater to children, and it was better for it. I know that's not the discussion I just wanted to add my two cents.

File: 1427466715340.png (154KB, 424x318px)

154KB, 424x318px

>>1751329
>The question is what is dumber
No, that was your question with another anon, you continued your answer with me even though I said I was someone else. My replies having nothing to do with "which is dumber" is another giveaway.
>>1751333
it was better for children when it wasn't catered to them coincidentally

Not any of the anons that are here
But I'm currently training in Jiu Jitsu and my goal in life is to become a pro wrestler. One of you anons keep bring up the "be rich as fuck" card in the UFC. I honestly don't give a fuck about the money . I want to be a pro wrestler for the story , the art , & the passion.

>>1750252
The problem when comparing what the WWE is now to what the WWF was back then is that people keep forgetting what the target audience was. 20 years ago you had drunk frat dudes at events because thats what they wanted to draw. Now you get the whole family coming along because they want the kids. It's hard to get drunk and rowdy when two seats away you have a little girl with a Bailey t-shirt and a New Day unicorn horn sitting with mommy and daddy.

The product is different than it was back then and it won't go back to being that way.

>>1751400
Sadly this is true, and the ratings suffer for it. There is a severe lack of banter right now.
I genuinely believe that even with the kid viewership, the product will suffer long term for this. Unless they tap into dat Asian market of course. They'll eat up any shit.

>>1751400
The work conditions are slightly less shitty on the WWE compared to the WWF for the Benoit scandal but wrestlers are still exploited, don't have a health insurance and neither any agency over their careers. They're pretty much living flesh toys for Vince and he discard them after they break

at least we never have to hear a CM Punk chant ever again

File: gimme dem titties.jpg (40KB, 442x324px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 442x324px

>>1751400

>mom took my brother and me to an episode of RAW in the late 90s
>that feel when we ended up in seats near that one girl who'd keep trying to flash the camera during a crowd shot