CM Punk finally breaks his silence.

[CKDaimen702]

I am new to posting, in fact this is my first post, but I am going to go against the grain and play devil's advocate for the moment. First off, I have been a fan of CM Punk since his ECW days. I have never followed the Independent's, had heard CM Punk's name but never knew much about him until he came to WWE. His rise from 2007-2013 was awesome and he became on of my favorite wrestlers. However, I have some problems with what he says in his interview.

Firstly, he has stated numerous times, including in his interview, that Vince and HHH do not know what is best for business. However, we forget that Vince McMahon has taken WWE from a regional promotion to essentially a monopoly, earning more money in a single year than most promotions made during their entire lifetime. If there is one thing Vince knows, it is what is best for business and he has proven that repeatedly throughout the last 35 years or so. Every time somebody leaves the WWE they blame Vince for not using him appropriately and not knowing what is best.

The bottom line is CM Punk was worried about CM Punk, which is OK, as he says he is an independent contractor and needs to look out for his own interests. However, Vince McMahon, rightfully so, is going to worry about his business more than an individual "contractor." For every wrestler I have heard state that the company tried to make them work injured, I have heard 5 report that Vince immediately took them off the road due to injury. Remember Shawn Michaels "Losing his smile" because he told Vince he had a devastating knee injury? Vince does not MAKE anybody wrestle at anytime! Does he want his top moneymakers to wrestle as often as possible with as few breaks as possible? Of course! Why wouldn't he, they're making him money? At the same time, should the top moneymakers want to wrestle as often as they can with as few of breaks as possible? Absolutely, if they are not on TV they are no longer the top moneymaker. Just ask Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns! When you're not on TV, you're not making money. It's as simple as that.

Now to CM Punk reporting that HHH did not do what was best for business in 2011, I have a counter argument to that. HHH had just lost to Taker at WrestleMania 27 and the build was already in place for a rematch at WrestleMania 28. CM Punk was his first match and it had occurred several months after WrestleMania. Punk had just gone over Cena TWICE in the previous two pay-per-views, so he was hardly being buried. HHH needed some momentum so that, come WrestleMania season, he could be seen as a legitimate threat for the Undertaker. Look at the remainder of the year, HHH jobbed out to Miz/Truth in back-to-back months and got beat up by Kevin Nash multiple times before finally going over in the December Pay-per-view. Had HHH lost to Punk clean, how could he have been sold as a legitimate threat to Taker in March? When you watch the match, it certainly does not bury Punk, as Punk kicked out of the pedigree and only lost after multiple episodes of outside interference. I don't feel that it is fair to say that HHH "buried" Punk in that feud, he simply knew that his in-ring time was limited and he needed some momentum of his own in order to properly sell the build up to Wrestlemania 28. Does anyone remember the build for WrestleMania 30 and how people were originally not interested in Brock Vs. Taker because Brock had jobbed so many times over the previous 2 years they did not see him as a legitimate threat? CM Punk was a full-time, young wrestler who had plenty of time to build momentum. In fact, 2 short months after losing to HHH he began his WWE Championship reign.

The same argument can be made for CM Punk losing to Brock Lesnar. They were beginning to build for Taker Vs. Lesnar at WM 30. People were already complaining about Lesnar not being a legitimate threat because he had lost so many times. If you saw that match, it certainly did not bury CM Punk, it made him look stronger than perhaps even the WWE title reign did. He went toe-to-toe with the Beast and only lost due to outside interference. He's a full time wrestler and "the best in the world," he has a lot of time to regain momentum. In fact, he did not lose another pay-per-view match for the rest of the year and nearly won the Royal Rumble. He was eliminated due to, you guessed it, outside interference. I'm noticing a trend to whenever Punk lost over the previous 2 1/2 years prior to his leaving. In fact, the only clean "jobs" I can recall Punk doing were to Rock at Elimination Chamber 2013, Cena on Raw leading to WrestleMania 29, and Taker at WrestleMania. Remember that Shawn Michaels, my personal choice for best wrestler of all time, lost more matches than he won and was still always considered a legitimate threat when put in the main event spot because he knew how to stay over even when losing. CM Punk had that same talent, but became bitter at having to use it.

Moving on, CM Punk also felt it was bad for business for him to lose to the Rock. Well, hindsight being 20/20, business did not improve for WrestleMania 29 as well as I'm sure WWE hoped. However, think about this logically. You've got one of the top stars in Hollywood with a HUGE movie (Fast 6) getting ready to be released and he is making the rounds on talk shows and TV programs to promote the movie. Why not take the opportunity for free publicity by having him announced as WWE Champion and promoting his title defense at WrestleMania? Yes, the buy-rate dropped for WrestleMania 29 compared to 28, but it was still higher than most other Wrestlemanias. And remember, the main event was a rematch with an obvious ending so for the buy-rate to be as high as it was shows how much of a draw the Rock was. This is not to say that CM Punk was not the best at the time, but he simply was not as big of a draw as the Rock. Yes, I agree that for wrestling storyline and buildup, it would have been a much better build to have CM Punk Vs. Undertaker in "streak vs streak," and would've made it much more believable that Punk could win the match. However, I can certainly understand, and most of you should also, why the WWE chose to do things the way that they did.

Finally, Punk complained that he did not NEED to work with HHH at WrestleMania, even though he was going to go over. For somebody who complained about every time he needed to do a job to a part-timer, he sure ran quickly once he found out the part-timer was going to job to HIM. Realistically tell me that a match with HHH at WrestleMania would not have been good for CM Punk at that stage of his career. HHH made Daniel Bryan look like a star in their match, and Bryan went on to win the title later that night. If not for Bryan's injury I believe that would have been the "Daniel Bryan Era" beginning, much like the "Austin Era" began at WrestleMania 14. That could have been CM Punk in that spot, but he decided he did not want to work with HHH because his feelings were hurt that HHH made him lose in 2011!!! Dude! He's returning the favor at one of the biggest shows of the year, what the heck do you have to complain about?!?!

Sorry for the rant but am getting tired of reading about people burying WWE and praising CM Punk for essentially walking out on his job and giving every fan of his the finger in the process. I know CM Punk believes that he would be as good as he was without the fans and I believe that may be true, however he would not have been as successful without the fans. Bottom line is, no matter how good you are if the fans aren't interested, you're not going to be a star. Anyone remember Chris Candido? Excellent in-ring competitor and pretty decent talker also, but could not get the fans to give a crap about him and, thus, never amounted to anything more than a jobber. If the fans did not care about Punk, he never would have amounted to half of what he became, so to simply walk out and refuse to speak for several months is completely unacceptable.

What do you all think?

Excellent points sir and very well said. I would say there is one omission, though, and that one omission is probably the biggest seed that spawned the festering resentment CM Punk had for the company and his current situation. Which is the fact that he did not main event Wrestlemania 29 even though he was in the midst of a historic reign. You addressed why The Rock should have main evented Wrestlemania and why he should have gone over Punk....but couldn't they have still had The Rock main event Wrestlemania in a triple threat match as CM Punk stated? Or even just have The Rock vs. CM Punk? After all, they did bill Rock vs. Cena at Wrestlemania 28 to be "Once in a Lifetime" so it's not like they HAD to do a one-on-one rematch. Thoughts?

 

[sanefan_har]

Now to CM Punk reporting that HHH did not do what was best for business in 2011, I have a counter argument to that. HHH had just lost to Taker at WrestleMania 27 and the build was already in place for a rematch at WrestleMania 28. CM Punk was his first match and it had occurred several months after WrestleMania. Punk had just gone over Cena TWICE in the previous two pay-per-views, so he was hardly being buried. HHH needed some momentum so that, come WrestleMania season, he could be seen as a legitimate threat for the Undertaker. Look at the remainder of the year, HHH jobbed out to Miz/Truth in back-to-back months and got beat up by Kevin Nash multiple times before finally going over in the December Pay-per-view. Had HHH lost to Punk clean, how could he have been sold as a legitimate threat to Taker in March? When you watch the match, it certainly does not bury Punk, as Punk kicked out of the pedigree and only lost after multiple episodes of outside interference. I don't feel that it is fair to say that HHH "buried" Punk in that feud, he simply knew that his in-ring time was limited and he needed some momentum of his own in order to properly sell the build up to Wrestlemania 28. Does anyone remember the build for WrestleMania 30 and how people were originally not interested in Brock Vs. Taker because Brock had jobbed so many times over the previous 2 years they did not see him as a legitimate threat? CM Punk was a full-time, young wrestler who had plenty of time to build momentum. In fact, 2 short months after losing to HHH he began his WWE Championship reign.

The same argument can be made for CM Punk losing to Brock Lesnar. They were beginning to build for Taker Vs. Lesnar at WM 30. People were already complaining about Lesnar not being a legitimate threat because he had lost so many times. If you saw that match, it certainly did not bury CM Punk, it made him look stronger than perhaps even the WWE title reign did. He went toe-to-toe with the Beast and only lost due to outside interference. He's a full time wrestler and "the best in the world," he has a lot of time to regain momentum. In fact, he did not lose another pay-per-view match for the rest of the year and nearly won the Royal Rumble. He was eliminated due to, you guessed it, outside interference. I'm noticing a trend to whenever Punk lost over the previous 2 1/2 years prior to his leaving. In fact, the only clean "jobs" I can recall Punk doing were to Rock at Elimination Chamber 2013, Cena on Raw leading to WrestleMania 29, and Taker at WrestleMania. Remember that Shawn Michaels, my personal choice for best wrestler of all time, lost more matches than he won and was still always considered a legitimate threat when put in the main event spot because he knew how to stay over even when losing. CM Punk had that same talent, but became bitter at having to use it.

Moving on, CM Punk also felt it was bad for business for him to lose to the Rock. Well, hindsight being 20/20, business did not improve for WrestleMania 29 as well as I'm sure WWE hoped. However, think about this logically. You've got one of the top stars in Hollywood with a HUGE movie (Fast 6) getting ready to be released and he is making the rounds on talk shows and TV programs to promote the movie. Why not take the opportunity for free publicity by having him announced as WWE Champion and promoting his title defense at WrestleMania? Yes, the buy-rate dropped for WrestleMania 29 compared to 28, but it was still higher than most other Wrestlemanias. And remember, the main event was a rematch with an obvious ending so for the buy-rate to be as high as it was shows how much of a draw the Rock was. This is not to say that CM Punk was not the best at the time, but he simply was not as big of a draw as the Rock. Yes, I agree that for wrestling storyline and buildup, it would have been a much better build to have CM Punk Vs. Undertaker in "streak vs streak," and would've made it much more believable that Punk could win the match. However, I can certainly understand, and most of you should also, why the WWE chose to do things the way that they did.

Sorry for the rant but am getting tired of reading about people burying WWE and praising CM Punk for essentially walking out on his job and giving every fan of his the finger in the process. I know CM Punk believes that he would be as good as he was without the fans and I believe that may be true, however he would not have been as successful without the fans. Bottom line is, no matter how good you are if the fans aren't interested, you're not going to be a star. Anyone remember Chris Candido? Excellent in-ring competitor and pretty decent talker also, but could not get the fans to give a crap about him and, thus, never amounted to anything more than a jobber. If the fans did not care about Punk, he never would have amounted to half of what he became, so to simply walk out and refuse to speak for several months is completely unacceptable.

What do you all think?

I like that you take a different approach to each of those scenarios. Seeing as you've been polite, let me politely disagree with you.

You talk about HHH needing to build momentum towards WM 28 for his match with Taker. In the process, you forgot that it was Taker who returned to Raw, just as Hunter was going to fire Laurinitis. Taker cut off his hair, he kept coercing HHH into a match, at which point Hunter snapped and decided to go for a Hell In A Cell match. This is kayfabe, no doubt, but the build of the match looked more like Taker wanted to prove himself against HHH than vice - versa. Even if you ignore kayfabe, these 2 were among the biggest names of the roster at the time, thanks to their multiple title reigns and legacies. Your claim about HHH needing some momentum to be viewed as a legitimate threat for Taker is also weird, considering the fact that he lost twice to Taker at 2 previous versions of WrestleMania, while putting up a valiant effort. Hence I'd have to agree with Punk, there was no need to have HHH be the victor of their match.

Next up, Brock vs Punk. This was purely on Vince. If Brock needed to be viewed as a threat, he should've defeated Cena on his return. I agree that Punk looked like a credible opponent for Brock, and I agree that it was the best match of the show. But to say Punk never lost a PPV after that was wrong, considering he lost to Heyman and Axel, thanks to interference from Ryback (of course ,he didn't lose clean, but he lost). Even his win at TLC was a fluke, since Reigns speared Ambrose. If Cena didn't put Brock Lesnar over the first time, there was no need for Punk to either. Especially when you consider that WWE marketed 2012 as the bad year for Cena (despite him main eventing against Kane and John Laurinitis at different PPVs over Punk)

As for The Rock in early 2013, Punk was actually willing to lose to the Rock, but he wanted to face Rock and Cena in the main event of Mania, and that was his major gripe. Also, The Rock got his title shot out of nowhere (unlike Randy Orton's RKOs) 6 months in advance. It literally deems the rest of the roster unimportant when a part timer gets an invulnerable No.1 Contender slot. Like others mentioned, he could've lost to Rock by DQ at Elimination Chamber, and then carried on to have a triple threat with the participants of "Once in a Lifetime".

Also, he never gave the fans the finger, he left because he was hurt. If I was in his position, I'd give preference to my own health instead of my fans. Especially when my doctors at work can't tell the difference between a lump of fat and a staph infection. He definitely did get the fans to give a crap about him, which is why his name is chanted on Raw to this very day.

 

[CKDaimen702]

Next up, Brock vs Punk. This was purely on Vince. If Brock needed to be viewed as a threat, he should've defeated Cena on his return. I agree that Punk looked like a credible opponent for Brock, and I agree that it was the best match of the show. But to say Punk never lost a PPV after that was wrong, considering he lost to Heyman and Axel, thanks to interference from Ryback (of course ,he didn't lose clean, but he lost). Even his win at TLC was a fluke, since Reigns speared Ambrose. If Cena didn't put Brock Lesnar over the first time, there was no need for Punk to either. Especially when you consider that WWE marketed 2012 as the bad year for Cena (despite him main eventing against Kane and John Laurinitis at different PPVs over Punk)

No one, whether it is CM Punk or a CM Punk fan, should have the audacity to complain about a loss to someone of the credibility of Brock Lesnar. Even Punk himself knew that he was treading on thin ice with that complaint so he prefaced it with, "By the way, just in case you don't know, wrestling is fake so it doesn't matter who wins or loses." Which, by the way, is badly worded because if it "doesn't matter" who wins or loses, then why complain about jobbing so much? But I digress. Anyway...yes, Brock Lesnar is part time, but he is still on the roster. So yes, every win adds to his momentum and makes him a bigger threat for future matches. Because as the IWC often overlooks, just because you are part time does not mean you will not have future main event matches, in which case, your past win-loss record matters all the same.

 

[sanefan_har]

No one, whether it is CM Punk or a CM Punk fan, should have the audacity to complain about a loss to someone of the credibility of Brock Lesnar. Even Punk himself knew that he was treading on thin ice with that complaint so he prefaced it with, "By the way, just in case you don't know, wrestling is fake so it doesn't matter who wins or loses." Which, by the way, is badly worded because if it "doesn't matter" who wins or loses, then why complain about jobbing so much? But I digress. Anyway...yes, Brock Lesnar is part time, but he is still on the roster. So yes, every win adds to his momentum and makes him a bigger threat for future matches. Because as the IWC often overlooks, just because you are part time does not mean you will not have future main event matches, in which case, your past win-loss record matters all the same.

But that's the thing. My gripe was with Vince and how he booked Brock's return. Like you said, Brock Lesnar had massive credibility, not just from his first run with WWE, but also as UFC Champion. Then why did Vince have him lose to Cena? That made no sense. If they didn't value Brock enough to have him go over Cena, then there was no reason for Punk to put over Brock either. Both Cena and Punk were full time upper carders who went neck to neck in quality matches and merchandise sales. So why discriminate between the two?

Also, I don't hate Cena, but I never understood that booking decision at all. Hell, compared to that, the Montreal Screwjob had a much more valid explanation.

 

[CKDaimen702]

But that's the thing. My gripe was with Vince and how he booked Brock's return. Like you said, Brock Lesnar had massive credibility, not just from his first run with WWE, but also as UFC Champion. Then why did Vince have him lose to Cena? That made no sense. If they didn't value Brock enough to have him go over Cena, then there was no reason for Punk to put over Brock either. Both Cena and Punk were full time upper carders who went neck to neck in quality matches and merchandise sales. So why discriminate between the two?

Also, I don't hate Cena, but I never understood that booking decision at all. Hell, compared to that, the Montreal Screwjob had a much more valid explanation.

I see your point, and I was surprised that Cena won that match as well, but what I would say to that is to suggest that "If Cena beat him, so should I" is not only fallacious reasoning, but also, all that would do is add to Brock's losses and thus make him completely useless. In other words, while his loss to Cena may be questionable, that only gives MORE reason not to compound his losses so that he can remain a valuable asset in the future. Punk himself used that same argument as it relates to himself. To paraphrase: "I already lost to HHH, then I lost to Brock, then Taker, that's THREE" So Punk needs to realize that this same logic applies to others. Brock could say "I already lost to Cena, I already lost to HHH at Mania. Now I lost to Punk? What's the point of coming back?" I don't mean to come off like a Punk basher, though. I'm a huge fan of his and loved the interview, but there are definitely some points he made I respectfully disagree with.

 

[anakin322]

Excellent points sir and very well said. I would say there is one omission, though, and that one omission is probably the biggest seed that spawned the festering resentment CM Punk had for the company and his current situation. Which is the fact that he did not main event Wrestlemania 29 even though he was in the midst of a historic reign. You addressed why The Rock should have main evented Wrestlemania and why he should have gone over Punk....but couldn't they have still had The Rock main event Wrestlemania in a triple threat match as CM Punk stated? Or even just have The Rock vs. CM Punk? After all, they did bill Rock vs. Cena at Wrestlemania 28 to be "Once in a Lifetime" so it's not like they HAD to do a one-on-one rematch. Thoughts?

I feel the better option would have been Rock Vs. Punk at WrestleMania and that would have left the door open for Cena vs. Taker, which would have been a much bigger draw. However, I am just assuming since I obviously am not involved in these discussions, it seems very likely that Rock was promised a title reign when he said he would return. If you watch after the wrestlemania 29 match against Cena, it looks like the plan all along was for the Rock to do a 2 year (3 wrestlemania) spread where he was made to look unstoppable and then put over Cena in order to cement Cena as the man, even though Cena hardly needed this. It is kind of sad that, even though Punk had the longest title reign of the modern era, he was somewhat of a placeholder. I get his frustration and am not saying he's not justified. I'm simply saying that Punk was looking after Punk and was not interested in what was best for business. Once again, I can't blame him as he is an independent contractor and if he is not looking out for his own best interest then nobody else will either. However, I don't think it's fair that he plays himself as a martyr now who insisted that Daniel Bryan be a part of the main event and feels that him sitting on his couch is what allowed for that. Although he might be somewhat correct, I feel he falsely worded his intentions. Even he stated earlier in the interview that when Vince approached him about turning heel and he had reservations Vince told him if he wanted to stay a baby face he would need to drop the title to Daniel Bryan so that Bryan could feud with the Rock. CM Punk didn't want to drop the title so he turned heel. If he was that big of an advocate for Bryan why not drop the title to him then? So he wants other people to do the favor for Bryan but he's not willing to himself? Sounds hypocritical to me.

Someone else corrected me in stating that Punk lost to Axel and Heyman in the handicap match due to Ryback's interference and I admit my mistake. However it does not disprove my point that Punk was still pushed strong for the rest of the year. Bringing up that Punk got a "fluke" win over the Shield with Roman Reigns spearing Ambrose is not a strong argument as, regardless of how, Punk got a CLEAN win in a 3 on 1 match against the most dominant group of the previous year. That group had won six man tags against teams such as Cena/Sheamus/Ryback, Orton/Sheamus/Big show, and Ryback/Daniel Bryan/Kane among many others and Punk beat them himself! How do they build him any stronger than that?

 

[sanefan_har]

I see your point, and I was surprised that Cena won that match as well, but what I would say to that is to suggest that "If Cena beat him, so should I" is not only fallacious reasoning, but also, all that would do is add to Brock's losses and thus make him completely useless. In other words, while his loss to Cena may be questionable, that only gives MORE reason not to compound his losses so that he can remain a valuable asset in the future. Punk himself used that same argument as it relates to himself. To paraphrase: "I already lost to HHH, then I lost to Brock, then Taker, that's THREE" So Punk needs to realize that this same logic applies to others. Brock could say "I already lost to Cena, I already lost to HHH at Mania. Now I lost to Punk? What's the point of coming back?" I don't mean to come off like a Punk basher, though. I'm a huge fan of his and loved the interview, but there are definitely some points he made I respectfully disagree with.

I get your point, and you've articulated it well.

So with that said, aren't you essentially agreeing with Punk? Vince McMahon doesn't plan in the long term for anyone, including Brock Lesnar and excluding Cena. Which is why my gripe was with Vince and not Brock or Punk

 

[CKDaimen702]

I get your point, and you've articulated it well.

So with that said, aren't you essentially agreeing with Punk? Vince McMahon doesn't plan in the long term for anyone, including Brock Lesnar and excluding Cena. Which is why my gripe was with Vince and not Brock or Punk

Not really, I'm not sure how this proves he doesn't plan for the long term. It's not like Brock HAD to go completely undefeated to plan for a future push far down the road.

And to go slightly off topic, even if it's true that they don't plan for the long term, sometimes not planning for the long term is a good thing. It leaves room for change. If everything were set completely in stone, where would the wrestlers find motivation?

 

[Darkshadow1234]

I see your point, and I was surprised that Cena won that match as well, but what I would say to that is to suggest that "If Cena beat him, so should I" is not only fallacious reasoning, but also, all that would do is add to Brock's losses and thus make him completely useless. In other words, while his loss to Cena may be questionable, that only gives MORE reason not to compound his losses so that he can remain a valuable asset in the future. Punk himself used that same argument as it relates to himself. To paraphrase: "I already lost to HHH, then I lost to Brock, then Taker, that's THREE" So Punk needs to realize that this same logic applies to others. Brock could say "I already lost to Cena, I already lost to HHH at Mania. Now I lost to Punk? What's the point of coming back?" I don't mean to come off like a Punk basher, though. I'm a huge fan of his and loved the interview, but there are definitely some points he made I respectfully disagree with.

The thing is Brock looked strong in the defeat. Cena won by a fluke.
and btw after losing to cena at extreme rules. He beat hhh at summerslam afterwards. Then at wrestlemania, lesnar lost. But at lesnar beat hhh at extreme rules cage match. This was all before feuding with punk.

The point punk was trying to make is that he jobbed to 3 part timers and other wrestlers. He was looking weak in defeat and overall. His stock is low.

Brock was looking strong in his loses and defeat.
Punk was ok with brock beating him.
Punk wanted a rematch with him. So he can get his win back.
Listen to the podcast.

I agree 100% with punk
Booking 101.

 

[CKDaimen702]

I feel the better option would have been Rock Vs. Punk at WrestleMania and that would have left the door open for Cena vs. Taker, which would have been a much bigger draw. However, I am just assuming since I obviously am not involved in these discussions, it seems very likely that Rock was promised a title reign when he said he would return. If you watch after the wrestlemania 29 match against Cena, it looks like the plan all along was for the Rock to do a 2 year (3 wrestlemania) spread where he was made to look unstoppable and then put over Cena in order to cement Cena as the man, even though Cena hardly needed this. It is kind of sad that, even though Punk had the longest title reign of the modern era, he was somewhat of a placeholder. I get his frustration and am not saying he's not justified. I'm simply saying that Punk was looking after Punk and was not interested in what was best for business. Once again, I can't blame him as he is an independent contractor and if he is not looking out for his own best interest then nobody else will either. However, I don't think it's fair that he plays himself as a martyr now who insisted that Daniel Bryan be a part of the main event and feels that him sitting on his couch is what allowed for that. Although he might be somewhat correct, I feel he falsely worded his intentions. Even he stated earlier in the interview that when Vince approached him about turning heel and he had reservations Vince told him if he wanted to stay a baby face he would need to drop the title to Daniel Bryan so that Bryan could feud with the Rock. CM Punk didn't want to drop the title so he turned heel. If he was that big of an advocate for Bryan why not drop the title to him then? So he wants other people to do the favor for Bryan but he's not willing to himself? Sounds hypocritical to me.

Someone else corrected me in stating that Punk lost to Axel and Heyman in the handicap match due to Ryback's interference and I admit my mistake. However it does not disprove my point that Punk was still pushed strong for the rest of the year. Bringing up that Punk got a "fluke" win over the Shield with Roman Reigns spearing Ambrose is not a strong argument as, regardless of how, Punk got a CLEAN win in a 3 on 1 match against the most dominant group of the previous year. That group had won six man tags against teams such as Cena/Sheamus/Ryback, Orton/Sheamus/Big show, and Ryback/Daniel Bryan/Kane among many others and Punk beat them himself! How do they build him any stronger than that?

Very interesting theory on the promise of a title run. That would make a hell of a lot of sense and would indeed force Rock vs. Cena because if they had a triple threat match they wouldn't have anyone to work with Taker. Regardless, I think they should have found an alternative personally because the Once in a Lifetime contradiction is a laughable absurdity.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

I feel the better option would have been Rock Vs. Punk at WrestleMania and that would have left the door open for Cena vs. Taker, which would have been a much bigger draw. However, I am just assuming since I obviously am not involved in these discussions, it seems very likely that Rock was promised a title reign when he said he would return. If you watch after the wrestlemania 29 match against Cena, it looks like the plan all along was for the Rock to do a 2 year (3 wrestlemania) spread where he was made to look unstoppable and then put over Cena in order to cement Cena as the man, even though Cena hardly needed this. It is kind of sad that, even though Punk had the longest title reign of the modern era, he was somewhat of a placeholder. I get his frustration and am not saying he's not justified. I'm simply saying that Punk was looking after Punk and was not interested in what was best for business. Once again, I can't blame him as he is an independent contractor and if he is not looking out for his own best interest then nobody else will either. However, I don't think it's fair that he plays himself as a martyr now who insisted that Daniel Bryan be a part of the main event and feels that him sitting on his couch is what allowed for that. Although he might be somewhat correct, I feel he falsely worded his intentions. Even he stated earlier in the interview that when Vince approached him about turning heel and he had reservations Vince told him if he wanted to stay a baby face he would need to drop the title to Daniel Bryan so that Bryan could feud with the Rock. CM Punk didn't want to drop the title so he turned heel. If he was that big of an advocate for Bryan why not drop the title to him then? So he wants other people to do the favor for Bryan but he's not willing to himself? Sounds hypocritical to me.

Someone else corrected me in stating that Punk lost to Axel and Heyman in the handicap match due to Ryback's interference and I admit my mistake. However it does not disprove my point that Punk was still pushed strong for the rest of the year. Bringing up that Punk got a "fluke" win over the Shield with Roman Reigns spearing Ambrose is not a strong argument as, regardless of how, Punk got a CLEAN win in a 3 on 1 match against the most dominant group of the previous year. That group had won six man tags against teams such as Cena/Sheamus/Ryback, Orton/Sheamus/Big show, and Ryback/Daniel Bryan/Kane among many others and Punk beat them himself! How do they build him any stronger than that?

I respectfully disagree with you. He was looking out for himself but he was also looking at for whats best for the company.
Why would he drop the belt to bryan, he wasn't ready at that point yet.
Punk wasn't boooked as strong as you say. Most of those wins were regarded as fluke wins.

 

[CKDaimen702]

The thing is Brock looked strong in the defeat. Cena won by a fluke.
and btw after losing to cena at extreme rules. He beat hhh at summerslam afterwards. Then at wrestlemania, lesnar lost. But at lesnar beat hhh at extreme rules cage match. This was all before feuding with punk.

The point punk was trying to make is that he jobbed to 3 part timers and other wrestlers. He was looking weak in defeat and overall. His stock is low.

Brock was looking strong in his loses and defeat.
Punk was ok with brock beating him.
Punk wanted a rematch with him. So he can get his win back.
Listen to the podcast.

I agree 100% with punk
Booking 101.

1. Obviously I listened to the podcast if I quoted the man.
2. I've always hated the "Get my loss back" tradition. And after seeing Rock/Cena back to back after a "Once in a Lifetime" billing, everyone now should as well.
3. A loss is a loss. Who's to say that Punk didn't look strong against Brock? Heyman mildly interfered in the match as a distraction when he lost to Brock. And are we REALLY counting Taker as just another loss? Really? It was the freaking streak. The only loss I can see him complaining about is the loss to Triple H, so that's just one complaint of merit in my opinion. One that I also disagree with, but at least it has merit.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

1. Obviously I listened to the podcast if I quoted the man.
2. I've always hated the "Get my loss back" tradition. And after seeing Rock/Cena back to back after a "Once in a Lifetime" billing, everyone now should as well.
3. A loss is a loss. Who's to say that Punk didn't look strong against Brock? Heyman mildly interfered in the match as a distraction when he lost to Brock. And are we REALLY counting Taker as just another loss? Really? It was the freaking streak. The only loss I can see him complaining about is the loss to Triple H, so that's just one complaint of merit in my opinion. One that I also disagree with, but at least it has merit.

Well I agree to disagree.
I like the get my loss back tradition. In most cases it works but in some it doesnt work.
Rock/cena should had one match. That's it.
I wanted to see a triple threat match involving rock/cena/punk. I feel that would be a better main event.
Punk really IMO didnt look strong at all.

 

[a member of wwe universe]

Well I agree to disagree.
I like the get my loss back tradition. In most cases it works but in some it doesnt work.
Rock/cena should had one match. That's it.
I wanted to see a triple threat match involving rock/cena/punk. I feel that would be a better main event.
Punk really IMO didnt look strong at all.

I think Vince didnt want a triple threat because he wanted his golden boy to get his rematch victory in the best possible way, a one on one clean victory. Anything less it will make cena look diminished.

Another reason could be because of taker. Besides punk, there werent any top stars can face him. Bryan was not ready.

What Vince should have done was book taker vs punk for the title and cena vs rock 2 non title. I think that would have made the most sense

 

[CKDaimen702]

I think Vince didnt want a triple threat because he wanted his golden boy to get his rematch victory in the best possible way, a one on one clean victory. Anything less it will make cena look diminished.

Another reason could be because of taker. Besides punk, there werent any top stars can face him. Bryan was not ready.

What Vince should have done was book taker vs punk for the title and cena vs rock 2 non title. I think that would have made the most sense

Taker vs. Punk for the title would have been amazing and I would have preferred that as well, but I don't see how it would have been possible. How would you justify Taker as the #1 contender? Well, I suppose he could have won the Royal Rumble as a surprise....that would have been something. Streak vs. Streak. Historic Title Streak vs. Wrestlemania Streak. The only problem is, if they did indeed promise The Rock a title run, then all of this was a non-starter.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Well I agree to disagree.
I like the get my loss back tradition. In most cases it works but in some it doesnt work.
Rock/cena should had one match. That's it.
I wanted to see a triple threat match involving rock/cena/punk. I feel that would be a better main event.
Punk really IMO didnt look strong at all.

But Vince wanted the strongest main event possible. To the hardcore fans like us, a triple threat seem like a better main event then rock vs cena 2 but you want to attract the casual fans also, especially for wrestlemania and in that case putting the rock (who is one of the biggest Hollywood star and a bonifide legend in wrestling), vs the biggest name in today's wwe in the biggest rematch since Austin vs rock at wrestlemania 19 was bigger simply because everybody even people who don't follow wrestling know who john cena and the rock are. Cm punk wasn't as well known from non wrestling fan so I don't blame Vince for booking that match at mania 29, if I was in the same position Vince was and I had the chance of having these 2 big name on back to back mania's I would have done the same thing.

 

[DB2CMPUNK]

But Vince wanted the strongest main event possible. To the hardcore fans like us, a triple threat seem like a better main event then rock vs cena 2 but you want to attract the casual fans also, especially for wrestlemania and in that case putting the rock (who is one of the biggest Hollywood star and a bonifide legend in wrestling), vs the biggest name in today's wwe in the biggest rematch since Austin vs rock at wrestlemania 19 was bigger simply because everybody even people who don't follow wrestling know who john cena and the rock are. Cm punk wasn't as well known from non wrestling fan so I don't blame Vince for booking that match at mania 29, if I was in the same position Vince was and I had the chance of having these 2 big name on back to back mania's I would have done the same thing.

True, but Vince can have his own ways with it. He can just eliminate Punk in a minute so he can have a rematch. Punk doesn't care if he win or lose as long he is at main event for Wrestlemania.

 

[CKDaimen702]

But Vince wanted the strongest main event possible. To the hardcore fans like us, a triple threat seem like a better main event then rock vs cena 2 but you want to attract the casual fans also, especially for wrestlemania and in that case putting the rock (who is one of the biggest Hollywood star and a bonifide legend in wrestling), vs the biggest name in today's wwe in the biggest rematch since Austin vs rock at wrestlemania 19 was bigger simply because everybody even people who don't follow wrestling know who john cena and the rock are. Cm punk wasn't as well known from non wrestling fan so I don't blame Vince for booking that match at mania 29, if I was in the same position Vince was and I had the chance of having these 2 big name on back to back mania's I would have done the same thing.

Yeah but that rematch does two things:
1. It makes Wrestlemania 28 a joke because of how much they hyped up "Once in a Lifetime" and
2. It makes the entire year of CM Punk's reign almost negated. Speaking personally, when I think of CM Punk's reign, I won't think of how long it lasted, I will think, "What a shame that such a reign did not culminate at Wrestlemania," especially the way Punk and Heyman were playing it up every week. And for that to be what people think about when it comes to that reign...is a damn shame.

As I stated before, I can see how it was somewhat unavoidable, especially if they promised The Rock a title run...but I am still voicing my displeasure with it nonetheless...and I can't help but think there had to be another way to have Punk defend the belt at Mania.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Yeah but that rematch does two things:
1. It makes Wrestlemania 28 a joke because of how much they hyped up "Once in a Lifetime" and
2. It makes the entire year of CM Punk's reign almost negated. Speaking personally, when I think of CM Punk's reign, I won't think of how long it lasted, I will think, "What a shame that such a reign did not culminate at Wrestlemania," especially the way Punk and Heyman were playing it up every week. And for that to be what people think about when it comes to that reign...is a damn shame.

As I stated before, I can see how it was somewhat unavoidable, especially if they promised The Rock a title run...but I am still voicing my displeasure with it nonetheless...and I can't help but think there had to be another way to have Punk defend the belt at Mania.

For you and me it can seem like this but for peoples that didn't watch wrestling for that whole year or are just how of touch with the current wwe product, they don't know who punk was or that he was champion for more then a year. I agree with you, I would have like to see punk in that main event, but the wwe is all about money especially during wrestlemania season and that rematch made more sense business wise

 

[Mighty NorCal]

1. Its one side of the story

2. Punk is pretty well known as a world-class ingrate and whiner (this is coming from someone who is a HUGE fan of the guy's work, not so much the person)

I would love to know Triple H's side to all this, but that wont happen any time soon. I know people love to eat this up because Punk is an IWC god and it supports everyones negative impressions of WWE and Triple H, but there is always two sides.

"He just had to kill my momentum in 2011! By making the whole show about me for the next year and giving me the longest title reign of the modern era!"

Give me a fucking break.

 

[sanefan_har]

For you and me it can seem like this but for peoples that didn't watch wrestling for that whole year or are just how of touch with the current wwe product, they don't know who punk was or that he was champion for more then a year. I agree with you, I would have like to see punk in that main event, but the wwe is all about money especially during wrestlemania season and that rematch made more sense business wise

As the WWE, if you are geared towards a once a year audience, you are better off promoting Mania and nothing else. If the WWE can't succeed in making new stars well recognized among the mainstream, they shouldn't bother with giving any new stars such a championship run or an interesting program, if they are never going to main event Summerslam or WrestleMania. Keep them in the mid card forever and then they'll have nothing to complain about.

Even if they had included Punk in the main event, the once a year viewers would've definitely tuned in. It's not like the value of The Rock and Cena decreases just because Punk is in the match with them. Even business wise, the rematch didn't make sense, since the first match was marketed as Once in a Lifetime. That's what ticked off most of the fans. Even Cena mocked the tag on the Raw after Mania 29 when Booker T said the Rock can invoke his rematch clause.

 

[d_henderson1810]

While Punk is a whiner, and he is being petty to WWE to some extent, I have always thought that the main event at WM29 should have been Rock v Punk v Cena in a TTM.

Here's how they could have done it:-

Cena wins the Rumble
Rock wins the belt off Punk, but at EC instead of RR.

So, each man would have a reason to be in the match. Rock is champion, Punk invokes his rematch clause, and Cena won the Rumble.

Besides, all three men have genuine heat with the other two in the match, so all three could run each other down on the mike (well Rock and Punk could, while Cena makes jokes).

Also, it wouldn't ruin the "Once In A Lifetime" match from the previous year, which we were promised that Rock v Cena was once and once only, since a Triple-Threat Match makes it a different match from just Rock v Cena.

So, if Punk is complaining about not headlining WM, it is WM29 I would agree with him with. Having him main-event at WM30 would take away from Bryan's "moment".

 

[CKDaimen702]

While Punk is a whiner, and he is being petty to WWE to some extent, I have always thought that the main event at WM29 should have been Rock v Punk v Cena in a TTM.

Here's how they could have done it:-

Cena wins the Rumble
Rock wins the belt off Punk, but at EC instead of RR.

So, each man would have a reason to be in the match. Rock is champion, Punk invokes his rematch clause, and Cena won the Rumble.

Besides, all three men have genuine heat with the other two in the match, so all three could run each other down on the mike (well Rock and Punk could, while Cena makes jokes).

Also, it wouldn't ruin the "Once In A Lifetime" match from the previous year, which we were promised that Rock v Cena was once and once only, since a Triple-Threat Match makes it a different match from just Rock v Cena.

So, if Punk is complaining about not headlining WM, it is WM29 I would agree with him with. Having him main-event at WM30 would take away from Bryan's "moment".

As a fan I agree with everything you said, but that still does not solve the Undertaker problem. He needed someone huge to face.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

So, if Punk is complaining about not headlining WM, it is WM29 I would agree with him with. Having him main-event at WM30 would take away from Bryan's "moment".

If Punk was there chances are that Bryan wouldt even had that wrestlemania moment in a first place. Plan was Punk/HHH, Orton/Batista and Bryan/Sheamus. Bad reaction to RR and fact that Batista was booed and Punk walking out maked them change that so we got Bryan/HHH and later for title Bryan/Orton/Batista.

Oh and there was no need for HHHs win in 2011 because it(and not that good booking later) did killed Punks momentum. Tough it could be argued that if their match at Wrestlemania 30 would happen it would be some sort of redemption for that provided that Punk would go over in that one.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Not much change here in my opinion...at the end of the day, Punk was entitled to walk out and the WWE was entitled to fire him (yes, Punk, even in your wedding day ).

The injuries were the untold story here, and with that you understand why Punk felt it was worth it to just walk away while he still had his health. What I wonder is how many guys will keep their silence in the future. Kayfabe died years ago, but the WWE likes to keep this locker room code of silence about the inner workings of the biz. Guys like Punk and Del Rio could threaten that.