CM Punk finally breaks his silence.

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Firstly, I think that this was an excellent post and I agree with most of it but there are some things that I disagree with. My general reaction to the whole interview was that Punk was more wrong than right, but he was right about a few things.

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.

I think what Punk is trying to say here is that Punk was gaining momentum this time round and losing to HHH slowed him down a bit. And despite what happened in the match, I agree with him to a certain extent. Actually, I do think that there was no need for HHH and Punk to feud at that time. It transitioned into an awful feud with Nash. Punk could have moved on to other challengers and HHH could have started gaining momentum by defeating the likes of upper midcarders like Ziggler.

It's not so much about Punk losing to HHH as much as him, in his hottest run, not being able to beat a part timer. And we are talking of HHH here, not someone like Undertaker or Rock. Triple H was not really on their level at this point.

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.

I think that the whole thing boils down to this: CM Punk does not view himself as HBK in the second part of HBK's career. He views himself as a guy who can overtake John Cena as the face of the company and believes that he was not given the opportunity to do so. However, I do agree that there was nothing wrong with him losing to Rock or Lesnar.

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?!?!

From what I've heard, the plans for Mania 30 were, Punk vs HHH, Bryan vs Sheamus and Orton vs Face Batista but all those went down the drain once it was apparent that Batista was not going to get over as a face. Given these plan, Punk felt that he was not given a fair place on the card. So Punk was not going to be given Bryan's spot, he was just going to be given a long overdue win over HHH.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Couple of things.

Punk getting fired on his wedding day is not a big deal to me. He quit on WWE during Wrestlemania season. He quit. HE QUIT. So who cares when he got fired? He quit during the most important time of their year.

He acts like it was a big deal to wrestle hurt. You would never hear Cena, Austin, Rock, or Hogan or really anyone else make a big deal out of that.

He wasn't over enough to get the main event at mania. he held the belt forever. It's not a charity. If you want to be put in the last slot at Mania, get more over than Rock/Cena. Otherwise shut up.

Guy seems like a whiner.

 

[CyberPunk]

Couple of things.

Punk getting fired on his wedding day is not a big deal to me. He quit on WWE during Wrestlemania season. He quit. HE QUIT. So who cares when he got fired? He quit during the most important time of their year.

He acts like it was a big deal to wrestle hurt. You would never hear Cena, Austin, Rock, or Hogan or really anyone else make a big deal out of that.

He wasn't over enough to get the main event at mania. he held the belt forever. It's not a charity. If you want to be put in the last slot at Mania, get more over than Rock/Cena. Otherwise shut up.

Guy seems like a whiner.

I've seen this as the biggest point being made against Punk: Punk not being as big a draw as The Rock and John Cena, not being over enough etc. I really want to understand this though. What determines how over someone is? PPV buys? RAW ratings? Segment ratings? Arena attendance? Merch sales? Boos and pops?

I am not trying to defend Punk. He himself says that he can be difficult to work with and I agree 100%. He tends to bitch and moan and it's difficult to work with someone like that. And if that's the reason he never got the push he thinks he deserved, I can understand that. But not being over enough?

The Rock vs Cena main evented Maina 28 did 1,219,000 buys. These numbers were reduced to 1,104,000 buys. So, do you think Rock and Cena match up wasn't as popular the second time round? Daniel Bryan main evented Mania did 684K buys. I am very sure with Network, these numbers would be higher, but does it mean that Bryan never deserved to Main event Mania? Punk was on a hot streak during 2011. He was the no.1 merch seller for the company for most part of 2011-12. If he wasn't over enough, he wouldn't have required to turn heel and feud with Rock, someone like Del Rio could've done that, no? Was the Miz over enough to warrant Mania main event? Even though he was no more than an after thought in the whole Miz/Cena/Rock setup, no one can take away that main event from him. And one thing Punk's never hidden is that he was hung up on main eventing one Mania.

I could care less about whether Punk should've been given the proverbial ball or not. But he has a point when he says how would you ever determine someone's a draw if you don't give them the ball in the first place. I am not saying everyone should or would be given a shot, but Punk by then had more than proven that he merited that one shot.

 

[sanefan_har]

I've seen this as the biggest point being made against Punk: Punk not being as big a draw as The Rock and John Cena, not being over enough etc. I really want to understand this though. What determines how over someone is? PPV buys? RAW ratings? Segment ratings? Arena attendance? Merch sales? Boos and pops?

I am not trying to defend Punk. He himself says that he can be difficult to work with and I agree 100%. He tends to bitch and moan and it's difficult to work with someone like that. And if that's the reason he never got the push he thinks he deserved, I can understand that. But not being over enough?

I could care less about whether Punk should've been given the proverbial ball or not. But he has a point when he says how would you ever determine someone's a draw if you don't give them the ball in the first place. I am not saying everyone should or would be given a shot, but Punk by then had more than proven that he merited that one shot.

Exactly. The way some people go on about how it should be an honour to work with The Rock, Taker, HHH and Brock only serves to under appreciate the efforts of the full time roster. The reason why the Attitude Era was successful was because WWE moved out of the past and stopped relying on Macho Man, Bret Hart and Hogan to keep coming back for Summerslam and Wrestlemania, instead opting to build new stars in The Rock, HHH and Austin.

They haven't done that in the past 5-6 years, and 2007 should've been when they should've pushed forward with improving their current roster. Instead it was Cena, Edge and Orton the whole time. Not that they were bad, but they were introduced at a time when the roster was being continually developed. That development stopped around 2008, and 2010 was a perfect example of why they should've given the ball to other superstars without any bias.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

He wasn't over enough to get the main event at mania. he held the belt forever. It's not a charity. If you want to be put in the last slot at Mania, get more over than Rock/Cena. Otherwise shut up.

Guy seems like a whiner.

He wasn't on Rock's level but he's easily on Batista's level, if not a few notches above it. I think that not main eventing Mania 30 was the last straw for him. The last three WrestleMania, yes 27 included, were all about Rock and Cena and Punk may have accepted that, albeit with some difficulty. But there is no logic in Batista walking in as the savior of the company, which is what the original plan was at WrestleMania 30.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

He wasn't on Rock's level but he's easily on Batista's level, if not a few notches above it. I think that not main eventing Mania 30 was the last straw for him. The last three WrestleMania, yes 27 included, were all about Rock and Cena and Punk may have accepted that, albeit with some difficulty. But there is no logic in Batista walking in as the savior of the company, which is what the original plan was at WrestleMania 30.

But by then, would you have believe Punk as wrestlemania main event worthy just by the way he was booked all year long. I wouldn't. The fact was that a lot of his fans move on and when on the daniel bryan band wagon by the time wrestlemania season arrive. I almost could guarantee that if punk would have been number 30 in the royal rumble instead of rey mysterio, he would have been booed out of the building just like mysterio was because he wasn't daniel bryan. So let face it, the fan wouldn't have excepted anybody but Daniel bryan in that wrestlemania 30 main event and not even punk could have change that so, yes maybe him quitting help bryan get the spot he deserved but at the same time if i would have stuck around, he probably would have taken bryan spot at wrestlemania because while the plan was batista vs orton, and that was a horrible plan that even batista didn'T want, They would have change it just like they did with daniel bryan wrestling twice because technicly, daniel bryan got the CM Punk program so he you follow that logic, Punk would have beaten HHH and then would have went into the main event of wrestlemania.

 

[anakin322]

Firstly, I think that this was an excellent post and I agree with most of it but there are some things that I disagree with. My general reaction to the whole interview was that Punk was more wrong than right, but he was right about a few things.



I think what Punk is trying to say here is that Punk was gaining momentum this time round and losing to HHH slowed him down a bit. And despite what happened in the match, I agree with him to a certain extent. Actually, I do think that there was no need for HHH and Punk to feud at that time. It transitioned into an awful feud with Nash. Punk could have moved on to other challengers and HHH could have started gaining momentum by defeating the likes of upper midcarders like Ziggler.

It's not so much about Punk losing to HHH as much as him, in his hottest run, not being able to beat a part timer. And we are talking of HHH here, not someone like Undertaker or Rock. Triple H was not really on their level at this point.




I think that the whole thing boils down to this: CM Punk does not view himself as HBK in the second part of HBK's career. He views himself as a guy who can overtake John Cena as the face of the company and believes that he was not given the opportunity to do so. However, I do agree that there was nothing wrong with him losing to Rock or Lesnar.



From what I've heard, the plans for Mania 30 were, Punk vs HHH, Bryan vs Sheamus and Orton vs Face Batista but all those went down the drain once it was apparent that Batista was not going to get over as a face. Given these plan, Punk felt that he was not given a fair place on the card. So Punk was not going to be given Bryan's spot, he was just going to be given a long overdue win over HHH.

All good points, but let me see if I can prove my point further. As far as there not needing to be a feud between Punk and HHH in 2011, I actually agree. Especially on the card with the little build up that it had. However, remember that was not the originally advertised matchup for that card. It was supposed to be Punk Vs. Kevin Nash after Nash beat up Punk at Summerslam and cost him the title. That match was actually advertised, and then they had to pull it due to Nash not getting medical clearance. Punk vs. HHH was a last minute replacement (either the week of or week before I can't remember for sure). So no, the feud did not need to take place at that time, but I think WWE scrambled due to not being able to do the planned Punk Vs. Nash match, much like it did with Punk vs. Ryback a year later when Cena got injured before HIAC.

As far as Punk overtaking Cena as the face of the company, anybody who thinks logically about that topic will know that Punk would NEVER be the face of the company. He simply does not have the personality for it, never mind the look. Do you think Cena would ever ignore fans in the airport or at a hockey game? Regardless of how "demanding and entitled" they were, as Punk put it, Cena would have signed autographs, smiled, and posed for pictures. In addition, at the end of the day Punk was a private guy, he liked having his "alone" time. I don't think he ever would have made the rounds and done the TV shows, public appearances, and all of the other off-camera things that Cena does, at least not as consistently as a Cena, Rock, or Hulk Hogan did it when they were the face of the company. Saying that Punk could not be the face of the company is not meant as a diss on him, he was one of, if not THE most talented and well-spoken entertainers the WWE had from 2009-2014, but, in my opinion, his attitude and personality is what stopped him from being the face of the company and not anything else.

 

[anakin322]

He wasn't on Rock's level but he's easily on Batista's level, if not a few notches above it. I think that not main eventing Mania 30 was the last straw for him. The last three WrestleMania, yes 27 included, were all about Rock and Cena and Punk may have accepted that, albeit with some difficulty. But there is no logic in Batista walking in as the savior of the company, which is what the original plan was at WrestleMania 30.

You're forgetting that Batista was getting ready to have a huge Marvel moving coming out a couple of months after WrestleMania. I'm not saying Batista was a bigger draw than Punk or not, personally I don't feel Batista was. However I am sure that is what WWE was originally thinking when bringing Batista back to headline WrestleMania was all of the mainstream attention they would get. It didn't work out the way they thought it would, which is probably why they changed the plan and added Daniel Bryan to the match. I really don't think anything that Punk said affected WrestleMania, except for making Daniel Bryan vs. HHH instead of Punk vs. HHH. The fans were crapping all over the main event of Orton Vs. Batista because neither one of them were over enough for that spot. WWE does listen to their fans, rather we like to admit it or not. That doesn't mean they jump and do everything the fans want, but they certainly listen.

I am willing to bet, although I admit I was never involved in the conversation so don't know for sure, that the plan was NEVER to have just Batista vs. Orton. If you look at the history of WWE the 10 year anniversary of Mania is ALWAYS about a massive underdog achieving the dream. Bret Hart at X, Benoit at XX. And WWE has consistently promotes the underdog story at mania, although they erased Benoit from the history books so they haven't used XX to promote for a while. How could they have possibly booked Batista to be the underdog against Orton? Even if he'd have stayed babyface, nobody would have bought it. I think Punk or Bryan would have been added to the main event no matter what, but Punk leaving left them with only one option.

What do you guys think?

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

As far as Punk overtaking Cena as the face of the company, anybody who thinks logically about that topic will know that Punk would NEVER be the face of the company. He simply does not have the personality for it, never mind the look. Do you think Cena would ever ignore fans in the airport or at a hockey game? Regardless of how "demanding and entitled" they were, as Punk put it, Cena would have signed autographs, smiled, and posed for pictures. In addition, at the end of the day Punk was a private guy, he liked having his "alone" time. I don't think he ever would have made the rounds and done the TV shows, public appearances, and all of the other off-camera things that Cena does, at least not as consistently as a Cena, Rock, or Hulk Hogan did it when they were the face of the company. Saying that Punk could not be the face of the company is not meant as a diss on him, he was one of, if not THE most talented and well-spoken entertainers the WWE had from 2009-2014, but, in my opinion, his attitude and personality is what stopped him from being the face of the company and not anything else.

I think this is true to a degree. Punk is definitely a primadonna, and he doesn't project a wholesome friendly vibe to people, so he's seen as "not a team player". He'd never be mistaken for the kid-friendly crowd pleaser Hogan or Cena are, or the photogenic witty physical speciman that Rock is. I think that Punk is very defensive of his privacy, and the true face of the WWE really doesn't have that. Punk may claim that he played the face role, and that he made the same Make-A-Wish appearances that Cena made, but there's always been this edge that Punk could just as easily sneer at a fan as smile and take a pic with them.

It really goes hand in hand with him not being a political animal. He's more like a Brock Lesnar or a modern day athlete...he knows his value and as long as he's being paid well, he'll be there for the team 110% (probably puts in him in better position than a lot of modern athletes, to be honest). Out of the ring, he wants to be his own person, and is a vocal defender of his space. He also seems like the kind of guy who'll always let you know that he's keeping score of what he does and how much he does for the company...again, not an appealing trait if you're looking for your "Face of the Company" type.

However, this isn't to say that Punk isn't charismatic, or valuable to the company, and that's probably what burns him the most. Maybe he could never be Hogan or Cena, but he could still be a spokesperson, and a much more effective spokesperson that 98% of the roster. His dealings with the public probably weren't an issue for the WWE, all told. It was more likely that he was a vocal basher of the internal workings of the WWE machine, and it's THAT lack of political savvy that ultimately held him back. None of this is to say that his criticisms aren't valid...I've thought many of the same things particularly with how the WWE treats injury...it has nothing to do with the talent and all about the CYA mentality that exists in the WWE.

Some of his criticisms do sound whiny though...I think Punk knows it too. He says stuff like having ideas stolen from him, like the origin of the Shield, aren't really the crux of what ate at him...but he's gonna still let you know that it was HIS idea. Again...it fits his personality. He's always going to be a guy who is building himself up and as long as you feed that ego and give him leeway to do what he wants, he'll give his all. I don't really find anything wrong with that as long as you can GO, and obviously Punk could.

Ultimately, what I respect about him is that he did walk away. He didn't cut the usual shoot of a broken down former wrestler. He left while he was still near the top, and decided to walk away from a lot of money because he valued himself more than a machine. He played the same game that the business heads of the WWE played, and decided "I've made my fortune...I'll go elsewhere". Call that "taking your ball and going home" but from a business POV, that's a very logical and smart move.

 

[XXJJ]

They took Punk out of the main event for Batista. I remember hearing about how Punk was upset that he didn't win the rumble. I thought Orton and Bryan were always going to be part of the WM main event because of how they were building up to that storyline. I think Batista getting the third spot is why Punk left.

Punk is a douche. He was going whine and complain whenever he left. The guy had the longest modern day title run and he is still not happy. He actually puts himself more over by doing this because fans think it is "cool" that he stuck it to Vince/HHH. The irony is he would probably main event WM if he ever came back because of how he left.

They should of had Punk drop the title to Ryback at HIAC imo. Ryback was red hot at the time and completely lost his momentum after that dumb finish.

 

[rge2010]

Tonight should be interesting because we finally get to hear 'the other side' to the story...I really hope Vince says 'Punk screwed Punk'.

WWE.COM: What is the one thing you want Mr. McMahon to have to answer on your live podcast on WWE Network?

AUSTIN: Nothing is off limits. There’s a line that I won’t cross, but that’s for my standards — nothing that WWE has told me. There are many things I’d like to ask him. I’d like to know what’s going on with CM Punk. I’d like to know how Daniel Bryan’s health is. I’d like to know whose idea it was in Atlanta [that made me] take my ball and go home in 2002. I reacted the worst way possible, but I want to know who came up with that masterpiece of an idea. Guys like me come along very seldom in the wrestling business. You can count ’em on a couple of fingers.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Tonight should be interesting because we finally get to hear 'the other side' to the story...I really hope Vince says 'Punk screwed Punk'.

Yeah, it'll be interesting, but they're playing with fire if they try to take him head-on. One of Punk's stated bones of contention is the treatment of health issues, and I think McMahon wants to steer far clear of that one.

 

[closet_fan]

While I can see Austin wanting to ask Vince everything he can that's out of his comfort zone, I don't see the interview being all that great that it will be talked about like Punk's interview.

I can even see Vince going so far as giving Austin a list of questions beforehand to ask.

No talk about wrestlers' welfare while injured or talk about how the wrestlers are getting paid in regards to the Network.

Milquetoast at it's best.

 

[Navi]

Am I the only one wondering what the one line Austin won't cross is?

Anyway, I don't really expect much to come out of it. The questions may be asked, and there will be a corporate answer. McMahon is not an idiot, and unless Austin gets under his skin, I doubt you'll hear anything new.

There is no way McMahon will open this up for further discussion and possible lawsuits further down the road. In saying that though. I want to see him try to defend some of the charges that Punk put out there. He's put the WWE in a bad position. Anything McMahon say could be seen as disingenuous, and with regards to Punk medical condition, that would come under the doctor/patient relationship, and can't be discussed openly. Punk can talk all he wants about it, but no one else can. The wrestlers salaries wouldn't be able to be discussed either I would think, that's business between them and the WWE, and not something I want to know about.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

He wasn't on Rock's level but he's easily on Batista's level, if not a few notches above it. I think that not main eventing Mania 30 was the last straw for him. The last three WrestleMania, yes 27 included, were all about Rock and Cena and Punk may have accepted that, albeit with some difficulty. But there is no logic in Batista walking in as the savior of the company, which is what the original plan was at WrestleMania 30.

Who would Punk have main evented 30 against? Daniel Bryan was a lot more over than he was.

Punk just needs to realize that he's Roddy Piper, not Hogan, not Austin, not Cena, not Rock, not even HBK or Bret Hart. He's great at getting heat.

Had Rock not come back, I'd say a Cena/Punk Mania main event should have happened.

Also, you are assuming WWE was seeing Batista as "the savior of the company" and that it was the original Mania 30 plan. Casual fans I talk to never thought that. To them it was obviously a work all along to get Bryan more over. Do you REALLY think that WWE and Batista are dumb enough to think that a natural heel coming and stealing Bryan's thunder was going to work? No. They used your pavlovian response to a hot baby face in January to mess with you. You guys bitch all the time that WWE is too formulaic. Then WWE goes outside the box, works both the smart fans and the IWC and you guys can't believe it. Bryan was a lot more over the way they booked him than if they had gone the tired route of having him win the Rumble.

At the end of the day, Punk seems to think he's more over than he is, thinks he can quit not he company during Mania season without consequences, and acts like he's the only guy who's ever been asked to work hurt. Sorry dude, but if you want to be treated like the top guy, who gives a fuck if you're hurt? You're supposed to work hurt. I'd like to hear Cena's opinion on this honestly.

 

[ColeMc]

Who would Punk have main evented 30 against? Daniel Bryan was a lot more over than he was.

Punk just needs to realize that he's Roddy Piper, not Hogan, not Austin, not Cena, not Rock, not even HBK or Bret Hart. He's great at getting heat.

Had Rock not come back, I'd say a Cena/Punk Mania main event should have happened.

Also, you are assuming WWE was seeing Batista as "the savior of the company" and that it was the original Mania 30 plan. Casual fans I talk to never thought that. To them it was obviously a work all along to get Bryan more over. Do you REALLY think that WWE and Batista are dumb enough to think that a natural heel coming and stealing Bryan's thunder was going to work? No. They used your pavlovian response to a hot baby face in January to mess with you. You guys bitch all the time that WWE is too formulaic. Then WWE goes outside the box, works both the smart fans and the IWC and you guys can't believe it. Bryan was a lot more over the way they booked him than if they had gone the tired route of having him win the Rumble.

At the end of the day, Punk seems to think he's more over than he is, thinks he can quit not he company during Mania season without consequences, and acts like he's the only guy who's ever been asked to work hurt. Sorry dude, but if you want to be treated like the top guy, who gives a fuck if you're hurt? You're supposed to work hurt. I'd like to hear Cena's opinion on this honestly.

Cena doesn't have time to reply, he's too busy working hurt.

 

[d_henderson1810]

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

Personally, I have always felt that Undertaker should have retired after Wrestlemania 28 in the HIAC match against Triple H.

I always felt that the three of them standing on stage together at the end would have been a fitting farewell to the "Dead Man" after one of the greatest matches of his career, and he retire undefeated at Wrestlemania, and possibly even be inducted into the HoF.

Then he wouldn't have fought at WM29, (and we wouldn't get the disgraceful Paul Bearer's ashes storyline) because he would have retired, and he wouldn't have had Brock Lesnar piss over the Streak at WM30 either, which would only have been a good thing.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Also, you are assuming WWE was seeing Batista as "the savior of the company" and that it was the original Mania 30 plan. Casual fans I talk to never thought that. To them it was obviously a work all along to get Bryan more over. Do you REALLY think that WWE and Batista are dumb enough to think that a natural heel coming and stealing Bryan's thunder was going to work? No. They used your pavlovian response to a hot baby face in January to mess with you. You guys bitch all the time that WWE is too formulaic. Then WWE goes outside the box, works both the smart fans and the IWC and you guys can't believe it. Bryan was a lot more over the way they booked him than if they had gone the tired route of having him win the Rumble.

I am willing to bet, although I admit I was never involved in the conversation so don't know for sure, that the plan was NEVER to have just Batista vs. Orton. If you look at the history of WWE the 10 year anniversary of Mania is ALWAYS about a massive underdog achieving the dream. Bret Hart at X, Benoit at XX. And WWE has consistently promotes the underdog story at mania, although they erased Benoit from the history books so they haven't used XX to promote for a while. How could they have possibly booked Batista to be the underdog against Orton? Even if he'd have stayed babyface, nobody would have bought it. I think Punk or Bryan would have been added to the main event no matter what, but Punk leaving left them with only one option.

What do you guys think?

http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-star-Chris-Jericho-on-Vince-McMahon-rejecting-the-idea-of-tattooing-C.M.-Punk-as-part-of-an-angle-says-Brian-Gewirtz-is-near-genius-why-he-didn-t-work-WrestleMania-30-39356

Check out the link that I've given. Jericho clearly says in his answer to the last question that Bryan was supposed to have a match with Sheamus. Now Punk has already said that he was supposed to get HHH and we also know that he was not going to main event. From that the only thing that I can infer is that it was going to be Batista vs Orton, which was a wrong move. I know Batista had a Marvel movie coming along but just a spot on the card against an upper midcarder would have been the best for all the parties involved.

I also know that Punk is a mark for himself but some of his points are spot on. I do think that he was good enough to get a WrestleMania main event and would have done so in different circumstances. It's more unfortunate than anything else.

 

[rge2010]

I said it all along that Batista vs Orton vs Bryan was always scheduled to be the Main Event of Mania 30. Bryan was wayyyy over and as many have said, WWE are not stupid enough to ignore the crowd reactions.

WWE played the crowd time and time again, screwing him out of the title at Summerslam, calling him a b+ player and leaving him out of the Royal Rumble. This was purposely done to create discontent within the WWE universe by holding him back - and when they pushed the button it would explode like it did. Holding Bryan back got him over even more so than Bryan himself.

This leads me to believe that when Punk met Triple H and Vince backstage at Raw, they told him that Bryan would be in the Main Event of Mania against Orton and Batista. Orton was champ, Batista was the Rumble winner and Bryan was the most over on the roster at the time. Punk is now taking credit and saying he is happy for Bryan but deep down, in classic Punk style he has a chip on his shoulder over it.

As for Punk...he moans that he was working injured, but then contradicts himself by saying he refused to take time off because he didn't want to lose his spot!!! He wanted it both ways but that is not how things work. Punk could ahve handled himself so much better in all this as well (as could WWE).

As for last nights interview, Vince may have given corporate answers but he acted with humility saying he would do business with Punk again if the wanted too, despite what Punk has said about the company. And lets agree that if they did, this would be REAL money...

 

[A11oftheLights]

Who would Punk have main evented 30 against? Daniel Bryan was a lot more over than he was.

Punk just needs to realize that he's Roddy Piper, not Hogan, not Austin, not Cena, not Rock, not even HBK or Bret Hart. He's great at getting heat.

Had Rock not come back, I'd say a Cena/Punk Mania main event should have happened.

Also, you are assuming WWE was seeing Batista as "the savior of the company" and that it was the original Mania 30 plan. Casual fans I talk to never thought that. To them it was obviously a work all along to get Bryan more over. Do you REALLY think that WWE and Batista are dumb enough to think that a natural heel coming and stealing Bryan's thunder was going to work? No. They used your pavlovian response to a hot baby face in January to mess with you. You guys bitch all the time that WWE is too formulaic. Then WWE goes outside the box, works both the smart fans and the IWC and you guys can't believe it. Bryan was a lot more over the way they booked him than if they had gone the tired route of having him win the Rumble.

At the end of the day, Punk seems to think he's more over than he is, thinks he can quit not he company during Mania season without consequences, and acts like he's the only guy who's ever been asked to work hurt. Sorry dude, but if you want to be treated like the top guy, who gives a fuck if you're hurt? You're supposed to work hurt. I'd like to hear Cena's opinion on this honestly.

He had golden staph ffs and the wwe doctor didnt/wouldnt cut it out despite it being the norm. And as Punk pointed out he out sold Cena for merchandise so he was in fact the most over superstar until they turned him heel.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Who would Punk have main evented 30 against? Daniel Bryan was a lot more over than he was.

If you listened to the podcast you would know he understood that his problem was that the momentum he built himself up since his pipe bomb was gone by the time he left due to a series of bad bookings (losing to Triple H, losing to The Rock, losing to Taker, losing to Lesnar).

 

[Softcore Holly]

If Punk was going to main event at 30 it would've been another triple threat except replacing Batista with Punk, which could've worked well enough. Batista wasn't getting great reactions on the mic and Punk would've easily cut better promos than him, in ring wise Punk at his worst(which it certainly looked like during his final days) was better than the..how to put it nicely....rusty Batista. The only benefit Batista had over Punk was he was a heel, which meant all the face reactions went solely to DB. But then again a argument can be made that making sure the fans weren't divided in who they wanted to cheer for in that match was worth not having 2 faces in there. This is assuming of course they couldn't just turn Punk heel.

The whole WM main event thing was quite possibly my least favorite part of Punk's interview. I can certainly buy that he was hot enough at one point, even that he deserved it. But I was annoyed when he mentioned his triple threat idea for 29. Not because it would've been bad for the match, if anything a happy/motivated Punk finally getting what he wanted probably would've done great things for that match. Especially since it would've help take some of the load off Rock and possibly kept him from being injured thanks to Punk taking part of the punishment. What I didn't like was Punk's idea of a elimination match, especially the part where Punk gets eliminated after 5 minutes and then we have Rock vs Cena as normal. There's no big WM moment there or anything like that, with that idea it was like doing the bare minimum to get a achievement in a game, or in this case a big payday. Getting the main event of a WM is a great dream for a wrestler to have/strive for so I don't blame Punk for wanting it, I just thought his idea of how to get it sucked.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I said it all along that Batista vs Orton vs Bryan was always scheduled to be the Main Event of Mania 30. Bryan was wayyyy over and as many have said, WWE are not stupid enough to ignore the crowd reactions.

WWE played the crowd time and time again, screwing him out of the title at Summerslam, calling him a b+ player and leaving him out of the Royal Rumble. This was purposely done to create discontent within the WWE universe by holding him back - and when they pushed the button it would explode like it did. Holding Bryan back got him over even more so than Bryan himself.

This leads me to believe that when Punk met Triple H and Vince backstage at Raw, they told him that Bryan would be in the Main Event of Mania against Orton and Batista. Orton was champ, Batista was the Rumble winner and Bryan was the most over on the roster at the time. Punk is now taking credit and saying he is happy for Bryan but deep down, in classic Punk style he has a chip on his shoulder over it.

I've yet to hear one person indicate that Bryan Vs. Orton Vs. Batista was the plan the entire time. Essentially, you're saying the WWE was able to keep this plan under its hat for months (a true feat in this age of insider leaks), and that Punk lied about the main event, basically indicating that the podcast was more or less a work. I just have a very hard time believing that. Knowing how the WWE views Batista and part time "celeb" wrestlers at Wrestlemania, I think the easier answer is the correct one: They really thought Orton vs. Batista was going to be their main event.

As for Punk...he moans that he was working injured, but then contradicts himself by saying he refused to take time off because he didn't want to lose his spot!!! He wanted it both ways but that is not how things work. Punk could ahve handled himself so much better in all this as well (as could WWE).

To be fair, he acknowledged that contradiction more than once in the podcast. He had worked injured for awhile, and kept working to maintain his spot as champ, particularly when he got hurt around TLC. I think the injuries piled up and his desire to "take one for the team" waned the final year as he was pretty much directionless the entire time.

 

[rge2010]

To be fair, he acknowledged that contradiction more than once in the podcast. He had worked injured for awhile, and kept working to maintain his spot as champ, particularly when he got hurt around TLC. I think the injuries piled up and his desire to "take one for the team" waned the final year as he was pretty much directionless the entire time.

'Take one for the team' - do you believe Punk does anything to help the company or he simply does it to promote himself? I dont believe he did anything for WWE, the Universe, anyone else but himself.

He also said 'it wasnt about the money' at the beginning of the podcast but all he did is complain about money (loyalties, ppv bonuses). And that was another reason he left!

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

'Take one for the team' - do you believe Punk does anything to help the company or he simply does it to promote himself? I dont believe he did anything for WWE, the Universe, anyone else but himself.

He also said 'it wasnt about the money' at the beginning of the podcast but all he did is complain about money (loyalties, ppv bonuses). And that was another reason he left!

Judging by his work rate and the quality of that work over the past several years, I'd say yeah, he was willing to help the company. No doubt that he's got an ego, as does Cena, McMahon, Triple H, Taker, and Lesnar, but why should Punk be derided for his own?

When it comes down to it, he wanted to be paid and/or recognized for his contributions which were substantial. I think he came off a bit mercenary but honestly, I don't think there's a guy listed above who wouldn't be saying the same things if they felt they were underpaid. How mercenary is it if you aren't cashing your royalty checks? My sense is that the recognition meant more to him than the money. Absent that, he was arguing "at least pay me like I'm a main eventer". In the end, I think he made enough money to be willing to walk away if he wasn't getting the recognition that felt was due. Given the often cutthroat nature of the WWE, I can completely respect that.