Originally posted by kentishTotally agree. I'm not crazy about Punk, but this was the worst pay possible to begin his second go round with the briefcase. It could only be worse if he actually lost the briefcase. I would love to know what idiot thought it was a good idea to job him to Kane last night.
Kane was losing credibility as a contender, and his win polished his recent reputation. He hasn't won a big match in a long time, and Punk retains the briefcase while losing no stature. Punk has beaten Kane regularly for a while now; he cleanly pinned him in house shows two months ago Click Here (The W).
I believe one of CRZ's rules was "If it didn't happen on tv, it didn't happen."
Originally posted by spfI believe one of CRZ's rules was "If it didn't happen on tv, it didn't happen."
Punk is a seriously established upper-card guy now. A rare singles loss will not dilute his appeal.
(edited by Matt Tracker on 27.4.09 1412)
I agree that a rare singles loss won't hurt a guy. But I don't believe Punk's losses are rare by any means.
Who would actually buy Kane as a serious threat these days? He hasn't held the belt since 1998, and that was for one day. He has been used horribly most of this decade, and is way past his prime IMO. I don't care that much for Punk, but at least he is a fresh face that hasn't totally been damaged at this point.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Let's be clear: losing to Kane isn't a deal breaker. Like Big Show, Kane is big enough to be the expected winner in most matches. A small guy like Punk losing to him is a lot less damaging than dropping a win against, say, Jericho or Orton. I just don't understand why they chose this specific point to do it.
this was at the Torch as well: "Before last night's NWA-TNA PPV, Jeff Jarrett announced at a preshow meeting that TNA will be holding the previously postponed three-hour Sunday night "Bound for Glory" PPV in April.