Who could Punk have beaten?

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

So, a few days ago, CM Punk gave a podcast which everyone's probably heard about. In that, he complained about a number of things from the ineptitude of the doctors to how America spends more money on sci-fi films like Gravity and Interstellar instead of doing actual scientific research. OK, the last one's not true but you get the picture. Punk did make some highly ludricuous claims, like creating the Shield, but I would like to talk about one of his more sane-sounding one.

Triple H, The Rock, Undertaker and Brock Lesnar are part time legends who have become special attractions these days in the WWE. OK, perhaps Brock isn't a legend but he's a very good draw. CM Punk wrestled against all four guys and lost to all of them. He claims that the losses to these legends killed his momentum and thereby put a glass ceiling on him. Punk claims that he should have beaten someone amongst the four.

So, what I'm asking you is: Who could Punk have beaten amongst the four which would have resulted in him becoming a bigger star? Let's take a look:

Undertaker: No. This would not have happened at WrestleMania and I'm having a hard time imagining Punk beating Taker at any other point of time either. It wouldn't have happened clean anyway. Maybe Punk could have beaten Taker with some outside interference as a heel on Smackdown or any other PPV. But I fail to see how it would have made Punk look better than he already was.

Triple H: I think that this option is the one that will get the most votes, but, in my opinion, this feud did not need to happen in 2011. Punk was in the midst of his hottest run while Triple H was returning to establish himself as the new authority figure. Neither guy could afford a loss here but if someone had to lose, it would have to be HHH. Still, I do feel that this feud sucked, so I don't want to discuss Punk beating HHH in this feud. The ideal scenario would have been for Punk to have a one on one match against Trips and beaten him clean like Bryan did at WrestleMania.

BrockLesnar: This could have happened but Lesnar would have and should have ultimately won the feud. Paul Heyman was ranting this time about how Punk could not beat Lesnar. I'd have Punk beat Lesnar in a normal match-up with a wrestling counter or something say, an F-5 reversed into a sunset flip, and Lesnar beat Punk in the return gimmick match.

The Rock: Somehow I feel that this is the best option. I remember there being a stipulation about Rock losing the title if he was DQ'ed or counted out. At Royal Rumble I'd have had Shield come out and attack Punk. Punk would have won by DQ and maybe tried to insinuate that the Shield was working for The Rock. It could have added to the drama.

Or alternately, I'd have Punk beat Rock cleanly. I could be wrong but the buzz for Cena vs Rock 2 was significantly less than the first one, and in my opinion, could have easily been done at some other PPV. Who knows how over Punk would have gotten had he become the man to have stopped Rock/ Cena 2 from happening. Furthermore, it would have made the story a tad more realistic. Here's Rock coming in after 8 years and claiming that he will be the Champion and also living upto his claim despite not wrestling for long periods against a guy who was wrestling day in and day out. I don't think The Rock would have lost anything by losing to Punk.

None: Yes, I'm gonna provide this option as well. Mark it if you feel that Punk did not deserve to beat anyone. Yes, you have every right to turn this into a Punk bashing thread and thereby prove that you are better than the average smark, so that you can feel that warm glow within yourself. Or you can also share some valid reasons why you feel Punk did not deserve to beat any of the four.

 

[thebarber]

he could have beat whomever he was booked to beat....having him defeat The Rock at Royal Rumble would have put him way over, drop the belt at Elim Chambner then a three way at Mania 29, Cena can get his pin over The Rock, Punk gets the rub of a main event and match with the big 2 and Rock vs Cena can still have their rubber match while Punk, whom is still there and the no 1 heel, gets a better push into Lesnar.

 

[Mustang Sally]

He claims that the losses to these legends killed his momentum and thereby put a glass ceiling on him. Punk claims that he should have beaten someone amongst the four.

Man, Punk really is his own biggest fan, isn't he? I'm not looking to revise history and say Punk was never any good, because that would be untrue. He was a good performer and did some really fine things in his time with WWE.

That said, he was never going to be an all-time great.....he had the presence, but not the physical tools.....and for him to complain about the company not having him go over some of the legends of pro wrestling shows how far he overrated himself, imo.

Glass ceiling? Hell, he was allowed to be a multi-time holder of the WWE title, including a reign of 400+ days. He was given some of the choicest gimmicks to run with, and he beat the #1 man in WWE, John Cena, on several occasions.

Okay, so far as Punk was concerned, he felt he was "held down" by losing to the legends? I say he rates himself too highly; that he was good enough to merit being in matches with any of the four men mentioned speaks well of his ability and standing in the profession. But I agree with the decision to have him lose to all of them; they were the best of the best of the best .......and as far as I'm concerned, the biggest travesty of all was his indiscretion in complaining about it.

 

[Navi]

I have to agree with Sally. Punk had all sorts of opportunities, title reigns and main event status. What more did he want? Just because he never main evented a Wrestlemania, which I think he should have at least one, is no reason to throw your toys out of the pram and leave. But that was his decision and it's water under the bridge now.

He could have beat anyone they put him up against, considering wrestling is scripted and all, and losing to the Rock, Taker and legends like that isn't sometimes such a bad thing. Look at the people he won against, Cena, Shield and others. Now if he had lost to Heath Slater or been put into a position like Cesaro is now, then yes complain up a storm. He had a pretty good run in the WWE for someone who is a self confessed pain in the ass to work with.

 

[MC_Live]

Punk should have beat all of them. The only thing that matters in a making a star is crowd reaction. From the night of the first pipe-bomb to the night he left, crowds reacted big time to CM Punk. Hell, they still chant his name nearly every week, and he's been gone almost a full year now. I mean, look at who we're talking about here. Triple H, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, and The Undertaker. Absolutely none of them would have been hurt by losing to Punk. Punk on the other hand could have been seen as their equal. Or at least closer. Punk is without a doubt a future WWE Hall of Famer. WWE should have done everything to make him as big a star as possible. Why? Because they needed it. They could have made another star. Maybe he would have been happy, he'd still be around, and WWE would be making a lot more money off of him.

Here's how all of this should have gone down. CM Punk wins the WWE Title, leaves, and returns. If they really wanted to do the Triple H match, which they shouldn't have, then he should have gone over. Next he wins the title back at Survivor Series. 434 day reign. Except on day number 434, he beats the Rock, and we get day 435. After defending the Championship at Elimination Chamber, CM Punk claims to be the top dog. He says that the WWE was his yard. This brings out The Undertaker. WrestleMania 29. Instead of Rock-Cena II, I would have put them in a handicapped match against The Shield. The main event would have been Punk vs. Taker, Title vs. Streak. On day 504 of his reign, CM Punk ends the streak. Boom, mega star there. As big of a name as Punk is now, he could have been bigger. Have him beat the streak, and retire The Undertaker. And then you could have had multiple matches with Brock Lesnar. Split those. And ta-da, CM Punk is a bonafide legend.

CM Punk isn't saying what he's saying because he's a huge fan of himself. He's saying it because he's right. The WWE makes so many wrong steps and screws up so many characters, they need to be called out for it. Steve Austin wasn't losing to legends on his way to the top. John Cena didn't lose to those legends until he himself was a certified legend. CM Punk could have and should have been the same. Triple H, Undertaker, Rock, and Lesnar would all still have been seen as five star legends. The difference is that in that case, Punk would have been a five star legend too. He's four stars at best now. Which I just don't get. I just don't get how a company, filled with people who are certifiable wrestling geniuses, people who have spent their whole lives doing this, can't see these mistakes. I just don't get how they can't see the problems they create.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It is almost like management was building themselves up as heels and Punk as a held back superstar who deserved better but wasn't having it given to him. What a crazy thought that is?

It is almost like they were building to WM 30 where the story could simply be Punk v HHH but the underlining subtext would "They better not hold back Punk again dammit!"

No, that it totally crazy. Just because they did the same thing to build DB (in a different way) doesn't mean they were doing it with Punk as well. We're too smart for that. Right? We're too smart for that? I mean this is professional wrestling. We totally know what is going on. Don't we?

There is no way we embraced Punk more with those loses. Right?

Anyway, Punk had no business beating anyone but maybe HHH and that could have still happened. He was enhancement talent after his title run. That cunt, sorry, that talented cunt always had one foot out the door.

 

[chuckmdubya]

Punk is the Bret Hart of this era. I really doubt that the walk away was the first time he had complained behind the scenes. I would guess that WWE felt he was not stable enough to be "the guy", as they did with Hart back then. Punk will be back when he's done sulking. I doubt he will make as much of an impact on UFC as Lesnar did. Punk is a guy with the skills, charisma, and desire to be great, but it seems he lacks the attitude of a great WWE champ.

 

[stonecoldstunner]

CM Punk could very well have beaten all of the above!!!

 

[Radical Canadian Goose]

As other posters have mentioned, he could have beaten anyone depending on booking. Also, he really does believe that he is the greatest of all time and shouldn't ever lose. As for these options, I understand the losses and totally agree with them to Taker and Brock. The loss to HHH was highly questionable and shouldn't have happened. I do agree with Punk on that, that HHH seemed to want to hold him down by coming out on top. I think that The Rock is the one that Punk should have beat. I really think that after a 434 day run Punk should have kept the title and had his "WrestleMania moment". Whether it was a triple threat with Cena and Rock or whatever, I believe holding a title that long deserves merit on the biggest PPV of the year

 

[FromGlasgow]

He was a multiple time world champion and one of those reigns lasted over a year, How can he seriously complain he was being held back? He didn't exactly revolutionise the world of professional wrestling during his world title reigns, I went off the WWE while he was champion as I found his matches and interviews to be so dull, Too be honest I don't think he even deserved to be in the ring with any of those big names nevermind demanding to beat them.

 

[TheHellmouth]

He deserved to go over all of them. For the sake of the story he should have gone over at least half of them. He was just about the only thing that kept me watching from 2009 on.

The Triple H feud was honestly pretty good. I rewatched the match itself recently and its entertaining as hell. Just skip all the Kevin Nash bullshit and have Punk go over clean. He was by far the hottest face on the roster and he was about to begin a title reign of unprecedented length. It's just logical booking. It's exactly like MC_Live said, they should have been doing everything they could to build him into a big star to keep people like me interested. Between Austin, Rock and Undertaker the much lauded Attitude Era had characters at the top of the card that everyone should be interested in. Feeding him to a retired Triple H just killed all of Punk's credibility before his title reign even began.

I would have had him go over the Rock as well. As he was a heel at the time it wouldn't have to be clean. Just find some way to keep the title and Punk and save us from that awful Rock/Cena rematch that no one wanted to see. How sad is it that Wrestlemania 29 ended with the fans booing the current top face and a WWE Legend out of the arena. I could see an argument being made for a triple threat between Rock/Punk/Cena but I think the fans would have still ended up turning on the inevitable Cena victory. I would have had the main event be Undertaker vs heel Punk, streak vs title. Taker winning. Since they didn't use ending Punk's historic reign as an opportunity to get a young guy over they might as well have him drop it to someone the fans at Wrestlemania would actually be happy to see holding a title one last time. In real life Taker wrestled two matches after Wrestlemania 29, one on Raw one on Smackdown. Just have him use those two matches on PPV instead of TV defending the title and then dropping it. I would keep Punk off TV until Summerslam where I'd have him set his sights on the WHC like John Cena did in real life.

If Lesnar was gonna be the man to end Taker's streak then he needed to start getting some wins. It was the real call for him to go over Punk, but in a perfect world they wouldn't have crossed paths at all yet by Summerslam '13. If Punk had stayed in with the company in this alternate world he would be an ideal candidate to face Lesnar during this current title reign to help establish Lesnar's dominance in a more entertaining way then him facing Cena a hundred times.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

I believe Punk did go over The Undertaker on Smackdown once or twice, as well as the so called "submission" victory he got to retain his title at Breaking Point 2009. I think that was actually designed to put Punk over in many ways but the feud just wasn't very good their 1st time around.

Besides that I think the glaringly obvious choice is Triple H. One thing I 100% agree with from Punk's podcast is that he should have gone over HHH at NoC 2011. It hurt his overall run along with losing to The Miz & R-Truth at the following PPV or whatever it was.

I also think he should have gotten a win over Rocky, especially since they had multiple matches. Punk could have gotten a big PPV singles win over Rock to look strong & then been eliminated early on in a three way match at WM 29 like he suggested on the podcast. Punk didn't need a win over Brock though, they only had the one match & he looked strong throughout. Also WWE was working on building Lesnar to eventually break the streak unbeknownst to us... & maybe to themselves as well.

 

[CyberPunk]

Man, Punk really is his own biggest fan, isn't he? I'm not looking to revise history and say Punk was never any good, because that would be untrue. He was a good performer and did some really fine things in his time with WWE.

That said, he was never going to be an all-time great.....he had the presence, but not the physical tools.....and for him to complain about the company not having him go over some of the legends of pro wrestling shows how far he overrated himself, imo.

Glass ceiling? Hell, he was allowed to be a multi-time holder of the WWE title, including a reign of 400+ days. He was given some of the choicest gimmicks to run with, and he beat the #1 man in WWE, John Cena, on several occasions.

Okay, so far as Punk was concerned, he felt he was "held down" by losing to the legends? I say he rates himself too highly; that he was good enough to merit being in matches with any of the four men mentioned speaks well of his ability and standing in the profession. But I agree with the decision to have him lose to all of them; they were the best of the best of the best .......and as far as I'm concerned, the biggest travesty of all was his indiscretion in complaining about it.

I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, Sally. I agree that Punk is full of himself. He is way over in his head, his recent move to UFC demonstrates that. However, I have to disagree with the the star thing.

If Punk was held down, there could've been only one reason and that is he's difficult to work with. His drawing ability had nothing to do with his status in the company. I am always puzzled by this. He was not on those legends' level. How do you think anyone on the current full time roster would reach these legends' level? I am very sure we can agree that during Punk's hottest time, he was only behind to John Cena, even may have briefly overtaken him in terms of merch sales etc. It was his drawing ability that put him in the position of going against Taker, Rock, HHH and Brock. Do you think if he had won any one of those matches, his stock would've risen? Do you think it would've positioned him better in terms of draw? Punk should be thankful for being put in those matches. So were Miz and R-Truth against Rock. Where did that take them?

Pro-wrestling is business of egos. Punk has a huge one, which I have no doubt all main event players have had."Not good enough" is not something I buy for anyone. It's all about positioning and promotion.

 

[That N Word]

Well, technically he did beat The Rock... and if they don't count that in the books then he already has beaten his legend in Cena. Hell multiple times he has beaten Cena. Also he has beaten Undertaker. Also, other legends he beat was Jeff Hardy,Chris Jericho,Christian,Randy Orton (I think),Matt Hardy and Edge

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Out of all of them only obvious one is HHH. Because it and bad booking after did kill his momentum. Other than that he didnt have any bussiness in others except to lose. Maybe Rock and then Rock to take title at EC but we all knew Rock was going over, it was logical booking decision and it wasnt so bad to lose to one of biggest stars ever after you were champion over 430 days.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Triple H and Brock Lesnar for me.

As for Triple H it was obvious that it's booking 101 that you need to protect your #1 emerging face of the company. Same reason why Reigns has booked to look strong and go over Orton and same reason why Austin and Cena were made to look unbeatable once their main event push kicked in.

As for Lesnar, Lesnar was coming off beating Triple H. So Punk could have gone over Lesnar since Lesnar still has The Royal Rumble to beat Big Show (or wherever would have his opponent been at the Rumble) to look strong againts Undertaker.

 

[Pissa]

Punk should have beat all of them. The only thing that matters in a making a star is crowd reaction. From the night of the first pipe-bomb to the night he left, crowds reacted big time to CM Punk. Hell, they still chant his name nearly every week, and he's been gone almost a full year now. I mean, look at who we're talking about here. Triple H, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, and The Undertaker. Absolutely none of them would have been hurt by losing to Punk. Punk on the other hand could have been seen as their equal. Or at least closer. Punk is without a doubt a future WWE Hall of Famer. WWE should have done everything to make him as big a star as possible. Why? Because they needed it. They could have made another star. Maybe he would have been happy, he'd still be around, and WWE would be making a lot more money off of him.

Here's how all of this should have gone down. CM Punk wins the WWE Title, leaves, and returns. If they really wanted to do the Triple H match, which they shouldn't have, then he should have gone over. Next he wins the title back at Survivor Series. 434 day reign. Except on day number 434, he beats the Rock, and we get day 435. After defending the Championship at Elimination Chamber, CM Punk claims to be the top dog. He says that the WWE was his yard. This brings out The Undertaker. WrestleMania 29. Instead of Rock-Cena II, I would have put them in a handicapped match against The Shield. The main event would have been Punk vs. Taker, Title vs. Streak. On day 504 of his reign, CM Punk ends the streak. Boom, mega star there. As big of a name as Punk is now, he could have been bigger. Have him beat the streak, and retire The Undertaker. And then you could have had multiple matches with Brock Lesnar. Split those. And ta-da, CM Punk is a bonafide legend.

CM Punk isn't saying what he's saying because he's a huge fan of himself. He's saying it because he's right. The WWE makes so many wrong steps and screws up so many characters, they need to be called out for it. Steve Austin wasn't losing to legends on his way to the top. John Cena didn't lose to those legends until he himself was a certified legend. CM Punk could have and should have been the same. Triple H, Undertaker, Rock, and Lesnar would all still have been seen as five star legends. The difference is that in that case, Punk would have been a five star legend too. He's four stars at best now. Which I just don't get. I just don't get how a company, filled with people who are certifiable wrestling geniuses, people who have spent their whole lives doing this, can't see these mistakes. I just don't get how they can't see the problems they create.

Hahaha this the the pinnacle of CM Punk mark-ism. He did not deserve to beat any one them much alone get such a mega push. This is the guy who kept saying he is nearing retirement in the near future and as admitted in interview always wanted to try out UFC. Not to mention a bad PR for the company.

John Cena didn't lose to those legends until he himself was a certified legend

I remember him getting his butt whooped by Undertaker and Angle when he first started.

Fact is CM Punk had no business being in the ring with any of the above mentioned legends. He was a glorified upper midcarder at best with his best days as the SES. Him, with his whitebelt (beginner) juijitsu background beating a UFC champ wouldve destroyed all of Brock's credibility and him beating Undertaker would've been a slap on the face of all the past greats who failed to beat the Undertaker. And him beat the Rock, who outdraws him 10x? LOL Thanks for the laughs.

My answer is none of above. He should've won the title at Summerslam (he did), Feud with Del Rio and win again (he did), and then dropped it around Royal Rumble to Orton. Orton vs Jericho would have been much better than Y2J vs Punk (given how those two brought down the house at NOC this year)

 

[The Boss]

The odd thing is, had CM Punk not walked away crying into his coke... er, I mean Pepsi - like a little b**ch, 2015 would have been his year. With all of the other faces either out injured, or in the case of John Cena having already wrestled Brock too many times (heck Cena is the ONLY one to challenge Lesnar for the title thus far), Punk would have been the perfect choice to face Brock for the title at WrestleMania. He's a former champion and main event star. He was still popular, and has a history with Brock. Had he just been patient he would have gotten that WrestleMania main event that he wanted. But because he was too big of a mark for himself he blew his chance. Funny how things work.

 

[Crocker]

He should have defeated Rock in my opinion. He should have won at the Royal Rumble and then dropped it to Rock at Elimination Chamber. If he defeated at least one of them his drawing power would have skyrocketed. I always viewed him as an upper mid carder/talent enhancement such as Jericho, but a win over a legend would really solidify him as one of the best; thats his whole gimmick, being the "best in the world". To be the best, you gotta beat the best, which he didn't do.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

I'm sorry but the guy was a placeholder in a time where the company was short of main event talent. Far from a legend. Self proclaimed perhaps.

And really who cares? Let's just be thankful we don't have to tolerate him hogging the spotlight on TV each week and then whinging and bitching about having to share it with more deserving talents.

 

[Crocker]

The odd thing is, had CM Punk not walked away crying into his coke... er, I mean Pepsi - like a little b**ch, 2015 would have been his year. With all of the other faces either out injured, or in the case of John Cena having already wrestled Brock too many times (heck Cena is the ONLY one to challenge Lesnar for the title thus far), Punk would have been the perfect choice to face Brock for the title at WrestleMania. He's a former champion and main event star. He was still popular, and has a history with Brock. Had he just been patient he would have gotten that WrestleMania main event that he wanted. But because he was too big of a mark for himself he blew his chance. Funny how things work.

I still don't think he would've gotten the WM main event, even if he stayed. If the WWE wanted to use Brock to build a new star, they would use him to put over Reigns, Ziggler, Rollins, or Ryback. If they felt that none of the above are ready to receive such a rub, then they would have Daniel Bryan or John Cena end Lesnar's reign since they're both bigger draws than Punk.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

Punk vs Blue Pants.

Now there's two opponents worthy of each other.
#instantclassic

 

[mace87]

The triple threat should have happened at WM 29 and he would probably still be in the WWE now. It seems like they deliberately sabotaged him as he was basically the no.1 guy in the business in terms of merch sales and being over with the crowd. Vince & Trips didn't want him to be the man or they never would have made him turn heel midway through his title reign and they would have made him beat the type of guys like Undertaker, the Rock, Lesnar & Triple H as well as giving him that WM main event he so desperately wanted.

I think he had legitimate gripes which lead to his departure although as he was the top guy at that point and it seems as though they just shit on him whenever an opportunity presented itself.

I would like to hear Vince or Triple H's opinions on the things Punk mentioned as there are always two sides to every story but maybe and this is a big maybe Punk's comments are justified and they know deep down that their is a lot of truth in what he said.