Failure to main event Wrestlemania...

[ShinChan]

As we know, CM Punk left WWE in the initial 2014 and his last appearance in WWE was at Royal Rumble 2014. Since then, he has gone away from professional wrestling and is currently signed with UFC.

CM Punk's major complaint with WWE was that he was never given the main event of Wrestlemania in his whole career. So this thread is about if his complaint was valid or not.

I think that he should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania at least once. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the only "stars" of this decade aka 2k1ish decade. Bryan got his Wrestlemania moment after Yes! Movement at Wrestlemania 30 just after CM Punk left WWE. But CM Punk didn't.

At Wrestlemania 29, CM Punk was defeated by The Undertaker. At Wrestlemania 28, he retained WWE Championship against Chris Jericho but still was in the co-main event as John Cena Vs. The Rock I was the headliner. At Wrestlemania 27, he was defeated by Randy Orton. At Wrestlemania 26, he was defeated by Rey Mysterio. At Wrestlemania 25, he won the Money In The Bank briefcase. At Wrestlemania 24, he did the same as well.

I totally agree that CM Punk should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania. Maybe 28/29. What about you?

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

As we know, CM Punk left WWE in the initial 2014 and his last appearance in WWE was at Royal Rumble 2014. Since then, he has gone away from professional wrestling and is currently signed with UFC.

CM Punk's major complaint with WWE was that he was never given the main event of Wrestlemania in his whole career. So this thread is about if his complaint was valid or not.

I think that he should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania at least once. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the only "stars" of this decade aka 2k1ish decade. Bryan got his Wrestlemania moment after Yes! Movement at Wrestlemania 30 just after CM Punk left WWE. But CM Punk didn't.

At Wrestlemania 29, CM Punk was defeated by The Undertaker. At Wrestlemania 28, he retained WWE Championship against Chris Jericho but still was in the co-main event as John Cena Vs. The Rock I was the headliner. At Wrestlemania 27, he was defeated by Randy Orton. At Wrestlemania 26, he was defeated by Rey Mysterio. At Wrestlemania 25, he won the Money In The Bank briefcase. At Wrestlemania 24, he did the same as well.

I totally agree that CM Punk should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania. Maybe 28/29. What about you?

Punk should have main evented 29. The issue with it been Cena Vs Rock 2 was it was so formulaic we all knew the outcome straight away. Throw Punk into the mix and you add intrigue.

 

[ShinChan]

Punk should have main evented 29. The issue with it been Cena Vs Rock 2 was it was so formulaic we all knew the outcome straight away. Throw Punk into the mix and you add intrigue.

Hey Brockie.

I agree that Rock Vs. Cena II was formulaic. The outcome was quite predictable even in kayfabe as at that time, kayfabe = reality for me. Adding CM Punk would add some unpredictability. But I think that CM Punk would be overshadowed by both Rock and Cena. It was very predictable after CM Punk turned on The Rock that the latter will win the title and then we'll see "Once In A Lifetime" again.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

He never had a match that was worthy of closing the show at the time.
But fear not, he will come back years down the line and become one of those part-timers that he was so outspoken about. Then when Mania comes around he'll be put in a marquee match and WWE will.....put him on in the middle of the card. Because WWE will be able to spot somebody they can play with and Punk is one of them.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

He never had a match that was worthy of closing the show at the time.

Taker vs. Punk could have been for the title. Though Rock vs. Cena II did kind of make sense at the time but the match kind of failed to deliver.

My guess is that Punk vs. Bryan could have headlined WMXXX. I know the show worked out for the best with Bryan overcoming Triple H, Orton, and Batista but if Punk didn't walk out I would think Punk vs. Bryan would have been idea.

At least they could have done Orton vs. Punk vs. Bryan instead.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

I totally agree that CM Punk should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania. Maybe 28/29. What about you?

As much as I like Punk, no. 28 was always about Rock and Cena, and 29 just followed. 29 as shitty as it was, was highest grossing live WWE event in history. You cant say that it wasnt good business decision to pair Rock and Cena.

Only way I could see it if it was triple threat and that Punk was inserted in Cena/Rock match. Would even gave Cena more redemption because he lost from Rock and he lost from Punk whole year.

 

[Spencesc11]

I think the big failure is that Punk vs. Rock should've taken place at Wrestlemania 29 and not at the Rumble. You had Rock vs. Cena "Once in a lifetime" so why do the same main event the very next year. Punk had the long title reign going. Why not have the Rock eliminate Cena to win the Rumble and then challenge Punk at Wrestlemania??? Then you could've had Cena vs. Taker that year as well. Those 2 matches made much more sense than Cena/Rock 2 and Taker vs. Punk in my opinion.

 

[The Perfect Max]

Arguably CM Punk should have been WWE Champion heading into WrestleMania 29. Then, if he faced the Undertaker, that match would have surely been the main event on the card. Alternatively, if he had been slipped into the match with Cena and Rock, then that would have DEFINITELY ended the show.

Problem is, neither of these circumstances arose. And despite how he may have had the better match or better program, at each WrestleMania, the match he ended up with was simply overshadowed by something bigger. At 28, Cena/Rock and Taker/Triple H were much bigger deals than Punk/Jericho, which is funny really because at the time their feud was considered somewhat of a dream feud. And despite their status at the show, they did go second to last anyway. At 29, I understand why Cena/Rock was the bigger match, though I didn't really want to see it. I understand for story purposes (I guess) why they had to do the match and thus why it was bigger. Any WrestleMania match with Punk before 2012 just didn't warrant the main event anyway.

This was also my 434th post. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[OYDK]

Mania 28 had the highest Mania PPV buyrate of all time, so that probably had a huge impact on why WWE decided to do Rock/Cena again. Obviously, by the way they were touting their first match at Mania 28 as "Once in a Lifetime", there were no plans to do the match again. Once the numbers came out, they likely thought that adding the title would result in similar numbers for 29. And they weren't that far off to be honest. I think Mania 29 was something like the 5th or 6th highest of all time.

I guess I can understand Punk's gripe, he had a legitimate claim to the main event after carrying the title for 434 days, but it's not like he was being left out. He did face Taker and was apparently scheduled to face HHH at 30. There was a lot more that went into Punk's leaving, the guy was pretty much miserable near the end and I doubt a Mania main event would have changed that. I remember him saying in an interview that he was more than unmotivated in his program with Taker, I think he actually said he didn't care at that point which is when he realized that he wasn't going to be around much longer.

Had he stayed around, he probably would have gotten his main event, than again, with the emergence of Reigns and Lesnar, he might not have. Basically, Punk wasn't a WWE guy and I doubt Vince found him reliable enough to carry the brand. Ultimately, he was right.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Mania 28 had the highest Mania PPV buyrate of all time, so that probably had a huge impact on why WWE decided to do Rock/Cena again. Obviously, by the way they were touting their first match at Mania 28 as "Once in a Lifetime", there were no plans to do the match again. Once the numbers came out, they likely thought that adding the title would result in similar numbers for 29. And they weren't that far off to be honest. I think Mania 29 was something like the 5th or 6th highest of all time.

I guess I can understand Punk's gripe, he had a legitimate claim to the main event after carrying the title for 434 days, but it's not like he was being left out. He did face Taker and was apparently scheduled to face HHH at 30. There was a lot more that went into Punk's leaving, the guy was pretty much miserable near the end and I doubt a Mania main event would have changed that. I remember him saying in an interview that he was more than unmotivated in his program with Taker, I think he actually said he didn't care at that point which is when he realized that he wasn't going to be around much longer.

Had he stayed around, he probably would have gotten his main event, than again, with the emergence of Reigns and Lesnar, he might not have. Basically, Punk wasn't a WWE guy and I doubt Vince found him reliable enough to carry the brand. Ultimately, he was right.

Yeah I am pretty sure CM Punk knew the plan for WM31 was for Roman Reigns to headline it.

I am guessing Punk knew he wasn't going to main event WMXXX either and that Batista getting the main event slot probably compounded with his frustration.

I mean I can understand Punk getting frustrated he was Champion for over a year but his run was seen as an afterthought. He wasn't given a strong program at WM28 (heck his match wasn't even in the opening video) and he even had one his matches pushed out of the closing match at a PPV in favor of John Laurinaitis.

Also I can't say he's wrong either in deserving to close WM. In a company where Kevin Nash, Edge, Yokozuna, Bam Bam Bigelow, King Kong Bundy and Chris Jericho all closed WM he probably felt he deserved it.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Mania 28 had the highest Mania PPV buyrate of all time, so that probably had a huge impact on why WWE decided to do Rock/Cena again. Obviously, by the way they were touting their first match at Mania 28 as "Once in a Lifetime", there were no plans to do the match again. Once the numbers came out, they likely thought that adding the title would result in similar numbers for 29. And they weren't that far off to be honest. I think Mania 29 was something like the 5th or 6th highest of all time.

Actually, Wrestlemania 29 was highest grossing of all time

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/29/highest-grossing-event

And Network came next year before Wrestlemania 30 so it is likely to remain this way forever. So from business standpoint of view they were right. Which doesnt mean it wasnt lackluster to see "Twice in a lifetime", just that WWE did great as business is concerned.

Now as I said, Punk could be included and it would add up perfectly to Cena story. Think even Punk himself said(on that Cabana podcast) to Vince and HHH that he wanted to be there even for just few minutes and even to take a pin from Cena. But they said no.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

WM 27, 28 and 29 where always the original plan. CM Punk just happened to be a fire that broke the boredom during that "3-year-plan". CM Punk's main event should have come at WM 30. WWE still had 2 world titles going into the event and had they been smart, Punk could have fought for the WH Championship and Bryan for the WWE Championship. Bryan gets his title win and Punk gets his main event and possibly sticks around for one more Wrestlemania where he puts someone over.

But noooo, they decided to go with Orton vs Batista, just because Batista happened to be in a big movie and WWE has no faith in themselves to sell Wrestlemania.

 

[El Rev sXe]

He never had a match that was worthy of closing the show at the time.
But fear not, he will come back years down the line and become one of those part-timers that he was so outspoken about. Then when Mania comes around he'll be put in a marquee match and WWE will.....put him on in the middle of the card. Because WWE will be able to spot somebody they can play with and Punk is one of them.

Are you kidding me? I understand that Punk didn't have many options that sounded like legitimate maint events for Wrestlemania. However there is one BIG match WWE failed to book it as the main event, CM Punk vs John Cena. There are probably 1 or 2 matches from them that are not very good, but the most majority of their matches are freaking awesome. They had the history, the rivalry, the chemistry worth of main eventing Wrestlemania.

I doubt he is coming back, he looks like a very stuborn person... But oh well

CM Punk deserved to main event one Wrestlemania, he was as good as Cena at some point, selling as much merchandise as him, if not even more, gaining mainstream attention to the WWE.

 

[d_henderson1810]

As we know, CM Punk left WWE in the initial 2014 and his last appearance in WWE was at Royal Rumble 2014. Since then, he has gone away from professional wrestling and is currently signed with UFC.

CM Punk's major complaint with WWE was that he was never given the main event of Wrestlemania in his whole career. So this thread is about if his complaint was valid or not.

I think that he should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania at least once. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the only "stars" of this decade aka 2k1ish decade. Bryan got his Wrestlemania moment after Yes! Movement at Wrestlemania 30 just after CM Punk left WWE. But CM Punk didn't.

At Wrestlemania 29, CM Punk was defeated by The Undertaker. At Wrestlemania 28, he retained WWE Championship against Chris Jericho but still was in the co-main event as John Cena Vs. The Rock I was the headliner. At Wrestlemania 27, he was defeated by Randy Orton. At Wrestlemania 26, he was defeated by Rey Mysterio. At Wrestlemania 25, he won the Money In The Bank briefcase. At Wrestlemania 24, he did the same as well.

I totally agree that CM Punk should've been in the main event of Wrestlemania. Maybe 28/29. What about you?

If he should have main-evented Wrestlemania, I would have had him do it at Wrestlemania 29.

Now, normally I am not a fan of Triple-Threat Matches for the WWE Title (not that I haven't liked any of them, e.g. WMXX one was awesome but there have been too many, some with a party in it that was "making up numbers".)

However, I would have had the main event at Wrestlemania 29 be The Rock v John Cena v C.M. Punk in a Triple-Threat Match.

This would have made sense, since Punk had an issue with both men, and so he should have been part of it.

Besides, at "Wrestlemania 28", we had been promised that Rock v Cena was "once in a lifetime". I know when Rock won the belt that Cena would win the Rumble, as an excuse to not go back on their word, as the "champion always fights the Royal Rumble" winner.

Here's how I would lay it out. Cena wins the Rumble, Punk wins the match against the Rock at "Royal Rumble", but loses the belt to Rock at "Elimination Chamber". That way, Punk gets in the match because he is using his rematch clause, Rock is champion, and Cena won the Rumble, so everyone has a legit excuse to be in. Also, these three men had issues with the other two, so there is no love lost between all three of them.

So, if Punk did this at WM29, then who would fight the Undertaker? I had a look through the card, and a good match would have been to drop Jericho fighting Fandango (since nothing became of Fandango's push anyway), and have him fight the Undertaker, since Jericho and Taker have rarely ever fought, and never on PPV.

 

[Dagger Dias]

They missed out on a couple of opportunities for Punk to main event Wrestlemania. The best times would have been at either Wrestlemania 29 or 30.

It wasn't going to happen at Wrestlemania 28. Cena VS The Rock was a dream match and it was a rare instance of something deserving close the show instead of one of the World Championship matches. This happened a lot during Punk's lengthy WWE Championship reign. At Wrestlemania 28 that made sense. During other shows where Kane in an Ambulance match or John Laurinaitis (of all people) got the main event over Punk, that was when it got to be a bit ridiculous. Anyway, back on topic. As great as the Punk VS Jericho feud was, Cena and The Rock should absolutely have still gone on last. It's the result of that match that I would change. Cena wins so that it truly does go on to be "once in a lifetime".

Then we have Wrestlemania 29. There are two different routes they could have gone here. Cena, Rock, and Punk could have done a triple threat for the WWE Championship which could have been good, however they would run the risk of Punk getting overshadowed by Cena and The Rock during this feud. Another option is to have Cena/Rock go as it did (in this scenario the Wrestlemania 28 match remains unchanged thus justifying a second Cena/Rock encounter) but then Punk gets to main event against Taker. Why is this? Punk ends the Streak. We would get a great match on top of a shocking moment to end the show. Plus it spares us the nonsense of having Lesnar end the Streak.

Last but not least, Wrestlemania 30. There's a couple of options here as well. A cool one to think about would be if they had Punk go after the big gold World Heavyweight Championship (perhaps facing Trips like the rumored feud we were hearing about at the time) while Bryan would still face Orton and Batista for the WWE Championship. It would have been a good path for them to potentially take had it been possible. This requires the TLC title unification match between Cena and Orton to not take place though. Or the better option which would have been Punk VS Bryan for the World Heavyweight Championship at Wrestlemania 30. That would have been awesome.

WWE did miss out on a few opportunities. There would have been others had Punk stuck around. Certainly not at Wrestlemania 31 since we were going to be stuck with Lesnar VS Reigns no matter what (thank goodness for Seth's cash-in!) but maybe he could have main evented against Reigns at Wrestlemania 32 or something. With this year's being what appears to be Taker's last it wasn't going to happen this year. It's interesting to speculate about. Maybe Punk will come back someday and still get the chance he wished he got. Yes it's doubtful although never say never. If Bret Hart came back then anybody could come back at some point.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I see a lot of posters trying to make arguments for WrestleManias 28 and 29. From a career trajectory standpoint, 28 would've made the most sense because he was so popular so over and riding the wave of momentum from the "Summer of Punk". This year was Daniel Bryan's WM30, if you will. The only problem was the WWE's biggest 21st century star and the biggest Hollywood actor in the world was returning for an icon vs. icon match. From a roster standpoint, 28 made no sense at all. Nothing CM Punk could've done in 2011-2012 would've made him a bigger draw than Rock's first singles match in 9 years.

29 is a sound argument - the idea being that his momentum was arguably even bigger than the previous year and he was coming off the longest title reign of the Modern Era. I truly believe he could've beat the Rock at RR and go on to headline WM and interest wouldn't have waned at all. His promos were golden although his match quality suffered a little due to the chicken shit heel transformation that he underwent in late 2012. I think the biggest obstacle here would've been finding an opponent. He already faced all the full time guys throughout the whole year and part time guys weren't ideal title holders. Maybe Brock vs. CM Punk (c) could've been the main event here. Another classic option wouldve been a Punk vs Rock vs Cena triple threat match for the belt.

My personal choice is WrestleMania 27. Go back and watch Punk's "Best in the World" DVD and he will tell you this was the major turning point in his backstage demeanor. He was the top heel in the company at this time, and Randy Orton was the most popular face. Their match stole the show but they shouldn't have had to steal the show, they should've been given the top slot. Instead, Cena got another needless main event tally and Miz's misguided push reached its culmination as Cena/Rock was also setup a year in advanced. I think Orton should've kept the belt and dropped it to CM Punk at the main event of WrestleMania 27 but in hindsight I'm glad he didn't. Seeing Miz get his top slot got Punk disgruntled and it was this attitude the started the 'Summer of Punk' and gave us the most memorable WWE Title reign of the 21st century.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

My personal choice is WrestleMania 27. Go back and watch Punk's "Best in the World" DVD and he will tell you this was the major turning point in his backstage demeanor. He was the top heel in the company at this time, and Randy Orton was the most popular face. Their match stole the show but they shouldn't have had to steal the show, they should've been given the top slot. Instead, Cena got another needless main event tally and Miz's misguided push reached its culmination as Cena/Rock was also setup a year in advanced. I think Orton should've kept the belt and dropped it to CM Punk at the main event of WrestleMania 27 but in hindsight I'm glad he didn't. Seeing Miz get his top slot got Punk disgruntled and it was this attitude the started the 'Summer of Punk' and gave us the most memorable WWE Title reign of the 21st century.

I think Punk was injured during the latter half of 2010 so he didn't have much momentum coming in.

WM27 should have been Wade Barrett vs. John Cena with Barrett as The Champion going in. Of course this would have only been possible if WWE booked Nexus properly.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Actually, Wrestlemania 29 was highest grossing of all time

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/29/highest-grossing-event

And Network came next year before Wrestlemania 30 so it is likely to remain this way forever. So from business standpoint of view they were right. Which doesnt mean it wasnt lackluster to see "Twice in a lifetime", just that WWE did great as business is concerned.

He said 28 had the biggest buyrate ever, which it did. 29 had the biggest gate which when coupled with the PPV buys makes it the highest grossing Mania ever, but did not sell as many PPVs.

The match at 29 should have been either a Triple Threat or a one on one with The Rock. The match we got was a dud and anyone with half a brain knew it was going to be.

 

[radec]

WM 29 and WM 30 were 2 WM's that Punk could have main evented. Having Cena and Rock be the main event of Mania 28 made sense, but then Mania 29 was just plain dumb, and i'm not a fan of two guys main eventing back to back Mania's. Plus, how does Rock pass the torch to Cena? Cena is already the torch, Cena should be passing the torch to CM Punk. Which goes into: Why CM Punk and John Cena should have main evented WrestleMania 29. Both men had the feud of the year in 2011, a story that revolved around the guy that fans like vs the guy the company likes. It was the first time that in storyline that they acknowledge, John Cena wasn't facing the man, he WAS the man. True, the WWE still acts like Cena is fighting the man to this day, but a guy like Punk brought up how Cena represents what Corporate wants. Instead of going with the flow, they ruined what could have been something special, with CM Punk as the top guy in the WWE. All they had to do was have Punk NOT come back in 8 days after MITB, have him come back after the "the never before, never again" tag match in Survivor Series. Have him confront Cena, set up the unification match at TLC. Punk beats him, and has a much more gain and depth to his title reign. Cena goes into a slump afterwards. He loses to The Rock at Mania AND he loses to Brock Lesnar in Extreme Rules. He disappears for a while, before eventually returning at MITB and winning the briefcase. Cena turns heel on Punk at Raw 1000. He injures Punk and has a dominating reign for a few months. Punk returns in the Royal Rumble, wins it and beats Cena in the main event of WrestleMania 29.

 

[Charismatic Enigma]

I don't think there's even a reason to discuss it, of course he deserved it. He was against the odds from the minute he walked in the door, and he overcame to the point that he had the longest title run of the modern era. Back in the day, being world champ meant you closed the show, period.

Not only in WrestleMania, but during his entire run as champion there were only 5 PPVS OUT OF 17 that he main evented. That's fucking criminal!

Both his biggest asset and ultimately his undoing, was that he's a mark. He loved the business so much, much like Bret Hart before him, that he took every aspect of it very personally. The belt wasn't just a prop to him, and headlining shows meant something to him. This is the same guy that special requested Fink intro him for a PPV, because he grew up hearing that voice. His love of the business and his passion for it, gave him the fuel to fight his way to the top, despite being undersized and unconventional, but eventually when he hit the glass ceiling he couldn't shatter, the frustration beat him.

But to me that just further validates, that yes, of course he should've main evented WM, and over other show during his title runs.

 

[WWEWrestleFest]

I agree that he should have main evented a WM when he was the longest reigning champion since the '80s. I also agree that him and Daniel Bryan are the only two real "super stars" of this decade. Others might get there, but as of now, it's really only been the two.

I saw an interview with him where he's saying "they told me a match with Undertaker is one of the main events. No, there's only one main event, and that's the last match on the card." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. While that's true on a literal level, "stealing the show" is also true. The main event of WM 18 was not Hogan/Rock. But that's damn sure the first match people think of when they mention that WrestleMania.

So yeah, he was one of the biggest stars of this decade and should have been booked in the main event at least once. But at the same time, I don't remember a Punk performance that was the definitive match of any of his WreslteManias.

 

[therockiswwf]

The only one that he could have done was WM 27. It didn't really matter who main evented with Cena as the whole point was The Rock. I think that is why they went with Miz. They could afford to use a lesser name due to Rock. Miz was also on fire at that point and was doing some damn good promos.

WM 28 was not an option. The story for 29 made sense to not include Punk. Cena had to redeem his loss from last year. He had to go through Punk first in order to make it to Mania. Cena did that and now he knew he was ready for Rock. I agree that the match fell flat but it made sense to not include Punk.

It is not like Punk was treated badly at Mania. He got to be part of the Streak, high profile match with Jericho, high profile match with Orton. He was supposed to face HHH at WM 30. Pretty good resume.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

The problem with punk was that his attitude got him in a lot of trouble backstage, so how can you trust a guy that'S going to pretty much piss everybody off if he doesn'T get what he wants. Vince dealt with that once with HBK in the mid 90'S and i doubt that he wanted to deal with that again. The other problem was that he got big just when The Rock decided to come back to WWE. Punk was an upper echelon guy but wasn'T a mainstream guy like the rock and Cena were so it was pretty much just a case of wrong place, wrong time for him because vince had an option between going with Rock vs cena 2 years in a row and makind a tone of money out of buyrate for mania or putting Punk in the main event and probably getting less buy as a result.

The only way i could have seen Punk being on the last match at mania, because i still consider his match with Taker at mania 29 as a main event, would have been if he was put in the match against cena at mania 27 instead of miz, outside of that again wrong place, wrong time.

 

[sikkbones]

Poor punk... Even when and if he had been able to main event a wrestlemania...

He probably would have had to job to john cena.

He still wouldn't be happy.

Its enough to drive someone straight edge to drink.

 

[bjarvis]

I think the big failure is that Punk vs. Rock should've taken place at Wrestlemania 29 and not at the Rumble. You had Rock vs. Cena "Once in a lifetime" so why do the same main event the very next year. Punk had the long title reign going. Why not have the Rock eliminate Cena to win the Rumble and then challenge Punk at Wrestlemania??? Then you could've had Cena vs. Taker that year as well. Those 2 matches made much more sense than Cena/Rock 2 and Taker vs. Punk in my opinion.

Oh 100%. That would have been a killer Mania. But I have no doubt that Cena signed onto the original Rock match to take the loss, so that he would get the win back the following year and leave their matches at 1-1.