The Unknown Poster

Really? LOL Good grief Gracie maybe? Lets be real here. Say what you want about him, but Lesnar was a legit star for them. He already had name brand recognition and he fought some of the best in the world with next to no experience. He fought current or former world champions in 4 of his 8 pro fights (while winning the belt for himself & defending it twice). He was a huge ratings draw for them (he headlined or co-headlined 3 of the top 5 selling PPV's the UFC ever had).Gracie was never a huge selling point for the UFC (comparatively speaking). Other than the fight against Hughes, his days as the main star were so long ago (and way before they started doing huge ppv numbers), he is pretty irrelevant to the current product. Brock was not only a huge star as a money draw (he was) but also a legit excellent fighter with tremendous credentials. Two time NCAA champion. Yes he was a pro wrestler but that doesn't deminish his fighting athletic ability whatsoever. Furthermore he struggled with diverticulitis his entire UFC career and couldn't train properly. Then he shouldnt have done it. Brock was used. Then got his ass handed to him. He was already world champion when he was diagnosed. He wasn't used at all. He was legitimately the world heavyweight champion. He beat up guys. And he got beat. No excuses. But he made many millions of dollars. And his wwe deal is up in April. UFC will be talking to him about a return.

Sure you dont want to trade him?Ha.... Kiddin I agree. Sign him up. Wellll.....

Really? LOL Good grief Gracie maybe? Lets be real here. Say what you want about him, but Lesnar was a legit star for them. He already had name brand recognition and he fought some of the best in the world with next to no experience. He fought current or former world champions in 4 of his 8 pro fights (while winning the belt for himself & defending it twice). He was a huge ratings draw for them (he headlined or co-headlined 3 of the top 5 selling PPV's the UFC ever had). Gracie was never a huge selling point for the UFC (comparatively speaking). Other than the fight against Hughes, his days as the main star were so long ago (and way before they started doing huge ppv numbers), he is pretty irrelevant to the current product. Brock was not only a huge star as a money draw (he was) but also a legit excellent fighter with tremendous credentials. Two time NCAA champion. Yes he was a pro wrestler but that doesn't deminish his fighting athletic ability whatsoever. Furthermore he struggled with diverticulitis his entire UFC career and couldn't train properly.

And thats exactly the point Landsberg was making. Has Punk ever have some dude really come at him to punch him to hurt him. ... Not hit to have a show.... But actually have a guy come to hurt him. Beat his ass in real life not a story line. Teddy Hart. And by all accounts Punk lost

Sign Buff to a lifetime contract.

Thing is, UFC wants Punk doing all this media. That's part of the deal. That's why UFC is willing to take hear about signing a non fighter. Because it's worth a lot of money to them. Punk is an international star. They want the media. So punk doesn't have much choice in doing the media rounds. He's repersenting his current employer not his old one.

Jan 9. Doubles Fun Club. 9pm. I'll leave a couple tickets at the door for you. Should be a good show. Kenny Omega won't be in til February but we have a good show planned. Everyone come check it out!

Your analogy is terrible. They would only be similar if the actor playing a cop had now become a real cop and came on the show to talk about his career change. Not even, unless while he portrayed the cop on the TV show, the fights were actually physical or the shoot outs used real bullets. Has Punk ever had a real fight other then WWE? Has he ever been in a MMA fight? Not that i know of. So why should he think hes going to be interviewed about it? Its silly. A person that plays a cop on TV is not qualified to give an interview about what real cops do. I'm sure OTR wasn't booking Punk to discuss the comic he's writing. He's doing a ton of media right now about ufc. TSN draws ratings for wrestling. That's why doofus wanted to talk about wwe but he was condescending immediately. There were plenty of ufc questions he could have asked but I get the impression he isn't a ufc fan.

Don't confuse UFC fighters (who fight maybe 2-4 times a year) with a regular mma fighter. There are guys who fight much more often than that (for an extreme example ook-up Travis Fulton - 300 fights since 1996 for an average of nearly 17 fights a year.). Most UFC fighters want to fight more (that's the only time they make money for the most part), but they have no control over that. Also don't forget to account for the travel schedule of a WWE wrestler. Although it's not as bad as it was in the past, there's still not a lot of time for them to recouperate before they're hopping on another plane or jumping in a car to head to their next show. UFC fighters have nothing that would compare to that. Im not confusing anything... I understand lots of UFC fighters fight lots and want to. But the rules to how much they can fight are different. Mainly because one is real and the other is fake. Which part of wrestling is "fake"? The word gets thrown around a lot by people who either have never done it or dont get it. Lots of real contact and real injuries in a fake sport. The story is fake. I never said they dont hit. But the hitting is for a whole other reason. If you cant tell the diff... well i duno what to tell you. IMO....Its like a soap for guys. Enjoy it. Well sort of... I have wrestled. I am a Booker. I know the difference.

I wouldnt say that at all. Part of being a professional wrestler is marketing. Many of them are very good public speakers and understand the important of a good interview. CM Punk knows how to market himself but I thought the only thing worse than his behaviour was Landsberg's. It might annoy Punk to do interviews, but then he should decline to do them. He was certainly not in the mood to banter or give answers beyond one or two word replies. He was clearly annoyed with discussing wrestling, though if he knew Landsberg at all, he'd know hes a big mark so it was to be expected. On the other hand Landsberg was delivering his questions to get a pre-desired response and Punk was having none of it. It was clear he was hoping for dirt on WWE. The gag video they played was absolutely insulting to Punk and you could tell he was ready to leave right there. And Landsberg had the "you used to be a wrestler so you cant take yourself too seriously" line in his pocket ready to use because he knew they were pushing Punk's buttons with the stupid video. But ultimately, Landsberg looked like an unprofessional jackass I have to disagree. Punk wanted to talk about being a UFC fighter. The problem with that is hes not a UFC fighter. What kind of idiot goes on a talk show expecting to talk about something hes not? IMO Landsberg was right on when asking him about being punched in the face.... Does punk think taking a punch in the face in the WWE is the same as when a guy like Nate Diaz wants to punch you in the face in the UFC? It sounds like it. This dudes going to get his face kicked in im thinking. Oh and when hes talking about the refs, LOL thats to funny.... yano why the ref dont stop anything in the WWE? BECAUSE ITS FAKE! That wasn't Punk's point at all. Guys get punched in the face in WWE all the time. I think Punk took it as a pain question and he was right (as was Lansberg) in saying WWE is far more dangerous and is much tougher on your body over time then MMA fighting. I thought Landsberg came across disrespectful in the question and he knows better as a mark but thats sort of his problem. He loves having workers on and loves to buddy up to them but he doesnt seem to actually like or respect wrestling.Definitely Punk could have been far more cooperative but the second the interview began with that video, I knew it wasnt going to go well. he also sandbagged him a bit with the "your buddy Chael" talk. Punk was unprofessional in not giving proper answers but he felt disrespected as soon as the interview began. Im not defending him. But Michael was far more of a jackass in how he basically threw a tantrum at the end. I guess i can agree to a point Landsberg played him but.... Getting punched in the face in the WWE is not even close to the same as the UFC pain wise or anything eles. Not even close. He dont like or respect wrestling because its FAKE.... Punk wanted to talk about UFC fighting... well thats like Landsberg asking a guy that plays a cop on a tv show what its like to be a real cop. It makes no sense to talk to him about it. I agree that the WWE is tougher on your body over time to a point.... mainly because they do it more.... UFC fighters dont fight every week. Ill ask you this..... Do you think that if a UFC fighter had to fight every week do you think it would be harder on his body then a WWE wrestler? ..... I would think so I guess you've never been a professional wrestler. Let me just say, you're wrong. There are far less injuries in UFC then WWE.Your example of comparing an actor on TV to a wrestler is not even remotely close to reality. It's sort of ignorant actually (no offense intended, just meaning you clearly have no clue what you're talking about). So i wonder why you need to call me names dude... its my opinion if you dont like it fine.. say so and run along. Did i call you ignorant for liking something as stupid as wrestling? Have i ever called you ignorant about any of your opinions? Nope I can appreciate a good discussion about anything and if and when im wrong im more then big enough to admit it. I didn't call you ignorant dude. I said it was ignorant to compare an actor in a TV show to a pro wrestler. Ignorant means lacking knowledge. It wasn't an insult. It was an observation. And calling me ignorant for liking wrestling would be improper use of the word since I am extremely knowledgable about that business. Calling wrestling stupid is your opinion. Which you at entitled to. I often agree unfortunately. But if you come check out one of my shows you might find it more entertaining then watching WWE. I'm happy to comp you (and anyone else here) to check out a show! There was no offense intended.

Wow

Sony CEO said today that they intend to release the film in some way but also that no video on demand distributor was willing to do it. I was thinking maybe Netflix but this makes it sound like they want no part. The risk of embarrassing emails and personal information is making cowards of a lot of people. The U.S. should NK and release as many embarrassing things about them as they can. But what is known about that country and leadership is pretty embarrassing already.

Id start by pinpointing where their cyberwarfare is conducted from (data centre, HQ etc) and bomb it into oblivion. Then id increase sanctions against the Nation (sorry innocent civilians but this is the way things are done) and use my own cyber warriors to cripple their government institutions. Make them never want to try this **** over a movie again. If I was Obama I'd host a screening at the White House and no matter how bad the movie is, I'd praise it. If I was SONY Id make the film available for free online.

I understand the liability aspect too. The pushback seems to be against Sony but what choice did Sony have after their theatre chains declined to show the movie? Even Obama today said Sony made the wrong decision. There was also concern, as Clooney alluded to, that if movie goers stayed away, it would bring down totals of other films. Im not sure if that is really accurate in the sense, some people might stay away but after a week or two of nothing happening, people would go back. i also wonder if Sony and the Theater chains had shown the film if the backlash against NK would result in even more people going. You can understand the liability issue but the threat is pretty far fetched. I hope the US decimates the NK government over this.

Im sure everyone knows the details. Personally, I had no desire to see The interview but I was going to go see it until it was pulled. I would have seen it and I would have gladly publicly said when and where. Its too bad there was never any release because I'd love to see mass viewings of the film as a protest. It's ludicrous that North Korea of all places is threatening companies into submission. The fact they threatened to kill people and bring about 9/11 like attacks should be enough to get a very strong response from the US. I just read this interview with George Clooney and he's 100% correct: http://deadline.com/2014/12/george-clooney-sony-hollywood-cowardice-north-korea-cyberattack-petition-1201329988/ DEADLINE: How could this have happened, that terrorists achieved their aim of cancelling a major studio film? We watched it unfold, but how many people realized that Sony legitimately was under attack? GEORGE CLOONEY: A good portion of the press abdicated its real duty. They played the fiddle while Rome burned. There was a real story going on. With just a little bit of work, you could have found out that it wasn’t just probably North Korea; it was North Korea. The Guardians of Peace is a phrase that Nixon used when he visited China. When asked why he was helping South Korea, he said it was because we are the Guardians of Peace. Here, we’re talking about an actual country deciding what content we’re going to have. This affects not just movies, this affects every part of business that we have. That’s the truth. What happens if a newsroom decides to go with a story, and a country or an individual or corporation decides they don’t like it? Forget the hacking part of it. You have someone threaten to blow up buildings, and all of a sudden everybody has to bow down. Sony didn’t pull the movie because they were scared; they pulled the movie because all the theaters said they were not going to run it. And they said they were not going to run it because they talked to their lawyers and those lawyers said if somebody dies in one of these, then you’re going to be responsible. We have a new paradigm, a new reality, and we’re going to have to come to real terms with it all the way down the line. This was a dumb comedy that was about to come out. With the First Amendment, you’re never protecting Jefferson; it’s usually protecting some guy who’s burning a flag or doing something stupid. This is a silly comedy, but the truth is, what it now says about us is a whole lot. We have a responsibility to stand up against this. That’s not just Sony, but all of us, including my good friends in the press who have the responsibility to be asking themselves: What was important? What was the important story to be covering here? The hacking is terrible because of the damage they did to all those people. Their medical records, that is a horrible thing, their Social Security numbers. Then, to turn around and threaten to blow people up and kill people, and just by that threat alone we change what we do for a living, that’s the actual definition of terrorism. DEADLINE: I’ve been chasing the story of the petition you were circulating for a week now. Where is it, and how were these terrorists able to isolate Sony from the herd and make them so vulnerable? CLOONEY: Here’s the brilliant thing they did. You embarrass them first, so that no one gets on your side. After the Obama joke, no one was going to get on the side of Amy, and so suddenly, everyone ran for the hills. Look, I can’t make an excuse for that joke, it is what it is, a terrible mistake. Having said that, it was used as a weapon of fear, not only for everyone to disassociate themselves from Amy but also to feel the fear themselves. They know what they themselves have written in their emails, and they’re afraid. DEADLINE: What happened when you sent the petition, and who did you ask to sign it? CLOONEY: It was a large number of people. It was sent to basically the heads of every place. They told Bryan Lourd, “I can’t sign this.” What? How can you not sign this? I’m not going to name anyone, that’s not what I’m here to do, but nobody signed the letter, which I’ll read to you right now. On November 24 of this year, Sony Pictures was notified that it was the victim of a cyber attack, the effects of which is the most chilling and devastating of any cyber attack in the history of our country. Personal information including Social Security numbers, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and the full texts of emails of tens of thousands of Sony employees was leaked online in an effort to scare and terrorize these workers. The hackers have made both demands and threats. The demand that Sony halt the release of its upcoming comedy The Interview, a satirical film about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Their threats vary from personal—you better behave wisely—to threatening physical harm—not only you but your family is in danger. North Korea has not claimed credit for the attack but has praised the act, calling it a righteous deed and promising merciless measures if the film is released. Meanwhile the hackers insist in their statement that what they’ve done so far is only a small part of our further plan. This is not just an attack on Sony. It involves every studio, every network, every business and every individual in this country. That is why we fully support Sony’s decision not to submit to these hackers’ demands. We know that to give in to these criminals now will open the door for any group that would threaten freedom of expression, privacy and personal liberty. We hope these hackers are brought to justice but until they are, we will not stand in fear. We will stand together. DEADLINE: That doesn’t sound like a hard paper to sign. CLOONEY: All that it is basically saying is, we’re not going to give in to a ransom. As we watched one group be completely vilified, nobody stood up. Nobody took that stand. Now, I say this is a situation we are going to have to come to terms with, a new paradigm and a new way of handling our business. Because this could happen to an electric company, a car company, a newsroom. It could happen to anybody. DEADLINE: You said you won’t name names, but how many people were asked and refused to sign? CLOONEY: It was a fairly large number. Having put together telethons where you have to get all the networks on board to do the telethon at the same time, the truth is once you get one or two, then everybody gets on board. It is a natural progression. So here, you get the first couple of people to sign it and … well, nobody wanted to be the first to sign on. Now, this isn’t finger-pointing on that. This is just where we are right now, how scared this industry has been made. Quite honestly, this would happen in any industry. I don’t know what the answer is, but what happened here is part of a much larger deal. A huge deal. And people are still talking about dumb emails. Understand what is going on right now, because the world just changed on your watch, and you weren’t even paying attention. DEADLINE: What kind of constraints will this put on storytellers that want to shine a critical light on a place like Russia, for instance, with something like a movie about the polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB officer who left and became an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin? CLOONEY: What’s going to happen is, you’re going to have trouble finding distribution. In general, when you’re doing films like that, the ones that are critical, those aren’t going to be studio films anyway. Most of the movies that got us in trouble, we started out by raising the money independently. But to distribute, you’ve got to go to a studio, because they’re the ones that distribute movies. The truth is, you’re going to have a much harder time finding distribution now. And that’s a chilling effect. We should be in the position right now of going on offense with this. I just talked to Amy an hour ago. She wants to put that movie out. What do I do? My partner Grant Heslov and I had the conversation with her this morning. Bryan and I had the conversation with her last night. Stick it online. Do whatever you can to get this movie out. Not because everybody has to see the movie, but because I’m not going to be told we can’t see the movie. That’s the most important part. We cannot be told we can’t see something by Kim Jong-un, of all f*cking people. DEADLINE: Some have pointed fingers at the media that feasted on these tawdry emails. Were they culpable in giving the terrorists a foothold, as Aaron Sorkin has said? CLOONEY: I do know something about the news world. I was sitting on the floors of newsrooms since I was seven years old, and I’ve been around them my whole life. I understand that someone looks at a story with famous people in it and you want to put it out. OK. It’s a drag, and it’s lame. But there’s not much you can do about it. You can’t legislate good taste. The problem is that what happened was, while all of that was going on, there was a huge news story that no one was really tracking. They were just enjoying all the salacious **** instead of saying, “Wait a minute, is this really North Korea? And if it is, are we really going to bow to that?” You could point fingers at Sony pulling the film, but they didn’t have any theaters, they all pulled out. By the way, the other studios were probably very happy because they had movies of their own going in for Christmas at the same cineplexes. There’s this constant circle, this feeding frenzy. What I’m concerned about is content. I’m concerned that content now is constantly going to be judged on a different level. And that’s a terrible thing to do. What we don’t need happening in any of our industries is censorship. The FBI guys said this could have happened to our government. That’s how good these guys were. It’s a serious moment in time that needs to be addressed seriously, as opposed to frivolously. That’s what is most important here. DEADLINE: As Amy and Michael took their turn in the barrel because of these emails, some questioned why they’d approve a movie that ends with the death of a standing dictator in a hostile foreign country. Others have said she should be able to make any film she wants. It’s a satire. What do you think? CLOONEY: The South Park guys did it. They blew up his father’s head. The truth of the matter is, of course you should be able to make any movie you want. And, you should take the ramifications for it. Meaning, people can boycott the movie and not go see your film. They can say they’ll never see a Sony movie again. That’s all fine. That’s the risk you take for the decision you make. But to say we’re going to make you pull it. We’re going to censor you. That’s a whole other game. That is playing in some serious waters and it’s a very dangerous pool. DEADLINE: You mentioned Team America. Some theaters wanted to show it on Christmas after The Interview was pulled as a show of defiance and Paramount pulled it back. They too are afraid of being in the hacker cross hairs. CLOONEY: Everybody is looking at this from self interest and they are right in this sense. I’m a movie theater and I say, “OK, there’s been a threat. Not really a credible threat, but there’s a threat, and my lawyers call and tell me, “Well, you run the movie and you could be liable.” And all the other movies around it are going to have their business hurt. I understand that, and it makes complete sense. But that’s where we really need to figure what the real response should be. I don’t know what that is yet. We should be talking about that and not pointing fingers at people right now. Right now, it’s not just our community but a lot of communities. We need to figure out, what are we going to do now — when we know the cyberattacks are real, and they’re state-sponsored. DEADLINE: Knowing what we do now, what does the government owe Sony? CLOONEY: I’ve seen statements they’ve put out and what the president said and what the response is. The truth is, it’s all new territory and nobody knows how to handle it. I don’t think anyone was prepared for it. So now we’ll be prepared for it, hopefully. Everybody was doing their jobs, but somehow, we have allowed North Korea to dictate content, and that is just insane. DEADLINE: You said everyone acts based on self interest. What’s yours? CLOONEY: I wanted to have the conversation because I’m worried about content. Frankly, I’m at an age where I’m not doing action films or romantic comedies. The movies we make are the ones with challenging content, and I don’t want to see it all just be superhero movies. Nothing wrong with them, but it’s nice for people to have other films out there.

Im shocked. So...I guess this really means we dont have a starter right now. Interesting. Pavs played very well last game so I figured he was in for sure. I know Hutch played well against Boston but definitely colour me surprised.

Don't confuse UFC fighters (who fight maybe 2-4 times a year) with a regular mma fighter. There are guys who fight much more often than that (for an extreme example ook-up Travis Fulton - 300 fights since 1996 for an average of nearly 17 fights a year.). Most UFC fighters want to fight more (that's the only time they make money for the most part), but they have no control over that. Also don't forget to account for the travel schedule of a WWE wrestler. Although it's not as bad as it was in the past, there's still not a lot of time for them to recouperate before they're hopping on another plane or jumping in a car to head to their next show. UFC fighters have nothing that would compare to that. Im not confusing anything... I understand lots of UFC fighters fight lots and want to. But the rules to how much they can fight are different. Mainly because one is real and the other is fake. Which part of wrestling is "fake"? The word gets thrown around a lot by people who either have never done it or dont get it. Lots of real contact and real injuries in a fake sport.

Your analogy is terrible. They would only be similar if the actor playing a cop had now become a real cop and came on the show to talk about his career change. Not even, unless while he portrayed the cop on the TV show, the fights were actually physical or the shoot outs used real bullets.

I wouldnt say that at all. Part of being a professional wrestler is marketing. Many of them are very good public speakers and understand the important of a good interview. CM Punk knows how to market himself but I thought the only thing worse than his behaviour was Landsberg's. It might annoy Punk to do interviews, but then he should decline to do them. He was certainly not in the mood to banter or give answers beyond one or two word replies. He was clearly annoyed with discussing wrestling, though if he knew Landsberg at all, he'd know hes a big mark so it was to be expected. On the other hand Landsberg was delivering his questions to get a pre-desired response and Punk was having none of it. It was clear he was hoping for dirt on WWE. The gag video they played was absolutely insulting to Punk and you could tell he was ready to leave right there. And Landsberg had the "you used to be a wrestler so you cant take yourself too seriously" line in his pocket ready to use because he knew they were pushing Punk's buttons with the stupid video. But ultimately, Landsberg looked like an unprofessional jackass I have to disagree. Punk wanted to talk about being a UFC fighter. The problem with that is hes not a UFC fighter. What kind of idiot goes on a talk show expecting to talk about something hes not? IMO Landsberg was right on when asking him about being punched in the face.... Does punk think taking a punch in the face in the WWE is the same as when a guy like Nate Diaz wants to punch you in the face in the UFC? It sounds like it. This dudes going to get his face kicked in im thinking. Oh and when hes talking about the refs, LOL thats to funny.... yano why the ref dont stop anything in the WWE? BECAUSE ITS FAKE! That wasn't Punk's point at all. Guys get punched in the face in WWE all the time. I think Punk took it as a pain question and he was right (as was Lansberg) in saying WWE is far more dangerous and is much tougher on your body over time then MMA fighting. I thought Landsberg came across disrespectful in the question and he knows better as a mark but thats sort of his problem. He loves having workers on and loves to buddy up to them but he doesnt seem to actually like or respect wrestling. Definitely Punk could have been far more cooperative but the second the interview began with that video, I knew it wasnt going to go well. he also sandbagged him a bit with the "your buddy Chael" talk. Punk was unprofessional in not giving proper answers but he felt disrespected as soon as the interview began. Im not defending him. But Michael was far more of a jackass in how he basically threw a tantrum at the end. I guess i can agree to a point Landsberg played him but.... Getting punched in the face in the WWE is not even close to the same as the UFC pain wise or anything eles. Not even close. He dont like or respect wrestling because its FAKE.... Punk wanted to talk about UFC fighting... well thats like Landsberg asking a guy that plays a cop on a tv show what its like to be a real cop. It makes no sense to talk to him about it. I agree that the WWE is tougher on your body over time to a point.... mainly because they do it more.... UFC fighters dont fight every week. Ill ask you this..... Do you think that if a UFC fighter had to fight every week do you think it would be harder on his body then a WWE wrestler? ..... I would think so I guess you've never been a professional wrestler. Let me just say, you're wrong. There are far less injuries in UFC then WWE. Your example of comparing an actor on TV to a wrestler is not even remotely close to reality. It's sort of ignorant actually (no offense intended, just meaning you clearly have no clue what you're talking about).

Lansberg should have framed it like this: "Wrestling is a very physical sport and guys get hurt all the time. You're no stranger then getting hit but generally your opponent isnt maliciously trying to hurt you. In UFC the opposite will be true. How do you think you will fare?" Even then, its sort of a stupid question because Punk isnt going to reply "Well, I never thought about that. Yikes, thats gonna suck. if I get hit Im toast." And while in UFC guys will be throwing at his head with intent to hurt him, he will also be actively trying to avoid that. In WWE, he's leaving his head in a prone position trusting his opponent not to hurt him so when a strike gets thrown, he's not protected.

Right now we have the following D under contract for next season: Enstrom Bogo Trouba Stuart Clitty Harrison Buff* Postma (RFA) Chairot (RFA) Ellerby (RFA) Morrissey*

I wouldnt say that at all. Part of being a professional wrestler is marketing. Many of them are very good public speakers and understand the important of a good interview. CM Punk knows how to market himself but I thought the only thing worse than his behaviour was Landsberg's. It might annoy Punk to do interviews, but then he should decline to do them. He was certainly not in the mood to banter or give answers beyond one or two word replies. He was clearly annoyed with discussing wrestling, though if he knew Landsberg at all, he'd know hes a big mark so it was to be expected. On the other hand Landsberg was delivering his questions to get a pre-desired response and Punk was having none of it. It was clear he was hoping for dirt on WWE. The gag video they played was absolutely insulting to Punk and you could tell he was ready to leave right there. And Landsberg had the "you used to be a wrestler so you cant take yourself too seriously" line in his pocket ready to use because he knew they were pushing Punk's buttons with the stupid video. But ultimately, Landsberg looked like an unprofessional jackass I have to disagree. Punk wanted to talk about being a UFC fighter. The problem with that is hes not a UFC fighter. What kind of idiot goes on a talk show expecting to talk about something hes not? IMO Landsberg was right on when asking him about being punched in the face.... Does punk think taking a punch in the face in the WWE is the same as when a guy like Nate Diaz wants to punch you in the face in the UFC? It sounds like it. This dudes going to get his face kicked in im thinking. Oh and when hes talking about the refs, LOL thats to funny.... yano why the ref dont stop anything in the WWE? BECAUSE ITS FAKE! That wasn't Punk's point at all. Guys get punched in the face in WWE all the time. I think Punk took it as a pain question and he was right (as was Lansberg) in saying WWE is far more dangerous and is much tougher on your body over time then MMA fighting. I thought Landsberg came across disrespectful in the question and he knows better as a mark but thats sort of his problem. He loves having workers on and loves to buddy up to them but he doesnt seem to actually like or respect wrestling. Definitely Punk could have been far more cooperative but the second the interview began with that video, I knew it wasnt going to go well. he also sandbagged him a bit with the "your buddy Chael" talk. Punk was unprofessional in not giving proper answers but he felt disrespected as soon as the interview began. Im not defending him. But Michael was far more of a jackass in how he basically threw a tantrum at the end.

It will be interesting to see how things shake lose because with everyone healthy they likely dont need either. Clitty becomes the 7th D. Especially if Morrissey makes the team. Or it frees up a trade of Bogo possibly. But D is definitely a Jets strength, thank goodness.

Harrison would fetch them a draft pick from a team looking to add D depth at the deadline. But Pardy is a UFA after this season. With Harrison having another year and Carolina picking up part of the tab, I wonder if the Jets might keep him as their veteran depth D man.

I wouldnt say that at all. Part of being a professional wrestler is marketing. Many of them are very good public speakers and understand the important of a good interview. CM Punk knows how to market himself but I thought the only thing worse than his behaviour was Landsberg's. It might annoy Punk to do interviews, but then he should decline to do them. He was certainly not in the mood to banter or give answers beyond one or two word replies. He was clearly annoyed with discussing wrestling, though if he knew Landsberg at all, he'd know hes a big mark so it was to be expected. On the other hand Landsberg was delivering his questions to get a pre-desired response and Punk was having none of it. It was clear he was hoping for dirt on WWE. The gag video they played was absolutely insulting to Punk and you could tell he was ready to leave right there. And Landsberg had the "you used to be a wrestler so you cant take yourself too seriously" line in his pocket ready to use because he knew they were pushing Punk's buttons with the stupid video. But ultimately, Landsberg looked like an unprofessional jackass