Report: Heat on CM Punk Within WWE After Segment with The Undertaker
CM Punk's promo during his segment with The Undertaker wasn't received entirely positively backstage.
According to a report by F4Wonline (via NoDQ.com), many feel that the segment didn't meet the standards set by Punk and Undertaker's work last week:
"There were a lot of people not happy with his backstage segment at last night's RAW where he juggled around Paul Bearer's urn to taunt The Undertaker. The feeling was that it wasn't as good as the Punk-Bearer-Taker stuff from the week before and that this one was bad for WWE and just bad in general. On a related note, it's said there is some kind of issue between Punk and WWE creative right now, but we don't know what those problems might be."
Perhaps it may be appropriate to take his vague "problems" with WWE creative as Internet speculation, but it certainly sounds possible that Punk's recent antics on television would be offensive to some within the company.
The Second City Saint copped similar heat after he and Paul Heyman made light of Jerry Lawler's heart attack last year.
CM Punk stole the urn of recently deceased William "Paul Bearer" Moody on last week's Raw. This week he imitated Bearer's high-pitched voice and vocal mannerisms and tossed the urn around like a basketball.
It's a surefire way to garner immense heat on the nefarious character that CM Punk plays, but it was similarly likely to offend people in and out of the company.
However, it's difficult to analyze the situation without knowing the creative process behind it. It's extremely unlikely that Punk wouldn't have run his ideas by creative and The Undertaker himself, so there were presumably several important people who thought it was all OK.
Did WWE go too far with CM Punk's promo on Raw? If so, is it entirely his fault or should the creative team be blamed as well? Let us know your opinions in the comment section below.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?