How far could CM Punk have gone after Pipebomb 2011?

[AkydefGoldberg]

Taking full advantage of the Network, I watched Punk's DVD that at the time was critically acclaimed at the time.

It was enjoyable viewing hearing about his journey in the Indies, to ROH, OVW, WWE but touching moments such as buying Joey Mercury's house for a six-figure sum when he was struggling with alcohol/drug issues.

The overwhelming feeling after watching it was, the whole short-termism of it all, specifically for the end of his WWE career starting from the Pipebomb in 2011. He was given all the material benefits without being able to influence change within the WWE sufficiently, on a long-term level.

Like his run as WHC holder in 2008/09, his 2012 WWE Title run seemed secondary to other programs. It seems like WWE would do all it could to protect Cena and make sure he was number one where as Punk was good to be quietened down with a few concessions but it was always short-term with him.

So, how far could Punk had gone had he been given that freedom and hierarchical support in the company?

[Everlong]

It would have been the greatest story of the decade, and he would have become the new Austin. But this would have required WWE to give their talent plenty of wiggle room to create their own material. As I said a couple days ago, we'd have been in another golden age since the Pipe Bomb if WWE wasn't so hell bent on giving people exactly what they don't want a majority of the time.

[Circled Square]

I'd say a poor man's Austin type of run if Haitch didn't get his big nose involved. He'd probably get burnt out and leave either way though in my opinion.

[KaiserGlider]

Yeah, I agree with Squared that eventually Punk would have been burned out and left anyway, though it's hard to say if being treated as the top star would have burned him out even quicker or if it would have motivated him to stay with the company longer.

I would say that Punk did end up bringing a lot of positive change to the WWE long-term, though it was a gradual process that happened over the course of several years after Punk was gone. All the top Indy guys that have been brought in and given legit pushes, and the guys like Styles, Joe, Aries that were allowed to come in and keep their name and gimmick - I don't think all that would happened on the scale it has if Punk didn't break out in 2011 and prove that that type of wrestler could be a main eventer in WWE. I believed he also paved the way for less scripted promos and people taking more chances on the mic.

[Str8Shooter]

I'd have to rewatch a bunch of his stuff from that time to really get a better feeling of it, a lot of time has passed.

I'm not sure Punk was ever going to be "the guy" like he seemed to want to be. Plus are we sure he really wanted to be the top guy anyway? I mean Punk's personality could accurately be described as "prickly". He had a giant chip on his shoulder and wasn't the easiest to get along with. Can you really imagine Punk co hosting the third hour of the Today show doing a segment on weird kids toys?

[Hanley!]

Punk could have been and should have been the top guy in the company, and the replacement for John Cena. He got over really well years before WWE did anything noteworthy with him. He killed it as a heel on Smackdown in 09 and was then unceremoniously tossed aside. In 2011, he was the hottest thing in wrestling in years, and the most popular guy the company had. He was on the verge of breaking out after three weeks of being involved in a killer angle on Raw. Then everything they did with him afterwards seemed designed to prevent him from getting more over.

He had the perfect personality to be top guy at that moment. He was PG, but had an edge. He was the Batman to Cena's Superman. The Tony Stark to Cena's Steve Rogers. He just fit better with the pop culture of that moment.

I'm not sure how long he'd have lasted on top. Maybe he'd have been gone by now anyway. He's famous for being difficult to get along with, and maybe by now he'd have thrown a tantrum and quit anyway. But I think he definitely could have and should have been top guy for two years anyway, and he should have had that Wrestlemania main event.

I'd have to rewatch a bunch of his stuff from that time to really get a better feeling of it, a lot of time has passed.

I'm not sure Punk was ever going to be "the guy" like he seemed to want to be. Plus are we sure he really wanted to be the top guy anyway? I mean Punk's personality could accurately be described as "prickly". He had a giant chip on his shoulder and wasn't the easiest to get along with. Can you really imagine Punk co hosting the third hour of the Today show doing a segment on weird kids toys?

Yeah, but could you imagine Steve Austin doing that?

I do think that WWE take these things into consideration a lot these days, but they shouldn't. There are more important things than having a top guy who is good at making small talk on chat shows. Having a top guy that fans like and that sells tickets is infinitely more important.

Hell, the Miz is one of WWE's most trusted performers for media and he's well down the card. They don't need to have guys like that in the main event. It's not like the talk show hosts give a fuck how many titles their guests have won.