CM Punk needs clean and decisive victories over atleast 2 of the "Big 5" in the WWE
 

While I am happy with the push that CM is getting from the WWE, he needs to get clean and decisive victories over atleast 3 of the "Big 5" in the WWE. Who are the Big 5?

-Triple H
-John Cena
-Undertaker
-Batista
-Orton

If the WWE are serious about positioning CM Punk as a top guy in the WWE, and not just some 2nd-tier world champ that is the current the champ of the #2 show, then the WWE needs to make this happen.

Being a world champion is great, but it will ultimately mean nothing unless the WWE allow CM Punk to cleanly and decisively beat atleast 2 or 3 of the Big 5....without having to have CM Punk do a return job. Remember when Triple H beat Foley in 3 consecutive matches back in 2000? The WWE needs to do this with Punk at some point over a few of the Big 5 guys that I listed.

it's not really his character though. I think his cheating/screwjob finishes where he gets away buy the skin of his teeth are working just fine for now.

by cleanly do you mean straightedge

Edge can be considered a "Big" in WWE as well and since he's probably returning as a face. It would be a good opportunity for him and Punk to feud assuming Punk still has the title by that time.

He beat Jeff Hardy cleanly in TLC. He was THE man for most of this year, IMO.

Jeff Hardy is going to be the next Chris Benoit.
Not saying he's going to go all roidy and kill his wife and kid, but he'll be censored out of WWE.

This is true, but keep in mind that characters can evolve. In 1999, Triple H also was more of a cowardly heel that needed to cheat most of the time to win. His feud with Foley changed that perception. Kurt Angle is another example of a guy that started off as a cowardly heel, but then eventually morphed into a guy that flat out kicked your ass.

Unfortunately for CM Punk, he's not a very big guy...and so the WWE might not be willing to do this with him.

and will continue to work. Orton is doing the same and it works well

Wow, an entire city in Somalia is posting...

I don't quite agree.

Jeff Hardy was another one of those guys that was never really a top guy despite being a multiple world champion. Reason? He never really ever got a clean and decisive victory, one-on-one, over any of "The Big 5." Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a difference between being a World champion, and being a legitimate #1 guy in the company...or on a show. It's the same reason why guys like Jericho, Booker T, Rey Mysterio, and many other world/WWE champions since 2002, have never really reached that upper echelon despite having been world champions.

These guys never beat ANY of "The Big 5"....cleanly and decisively.

Even if these guys managed to get a win over any of the Big 5, it was made to look as flukey as possible. Even a guy like Edge has never really had a big and clean win over someone like Undertaker, Triple H, John Cena, or Batista. Thankfully, Angle and Foley helped Edge out.

CM Punk is quite possibly the biggest ray of light that the WWE has had in years. I hope for their sake, that they don't screw him up.

Orton would have been better off getting clean and decisive victories...maybe with minimal heelish cheating.

Notice how over Orton was at the start of the year? Notice how as soon as he began his feud with Triple H, and became a major chicken shit heel, his momentum started to die off considerably?

It still boggles my mind that Orton didn't go over HHH at Mania'.

GOD no. I hate this strategy. Yeah, it's typical heel booking but with Punkl, I think his character works better if he's beating people like Hardy cleanyly and then just saying I told you so to piss off the people who wrongly cheer him.

I'd take Tista out of your big 5 and replace with Edge. Then the only one missing is HBK. Might as well take Cena out and put HBK in because there's no way they'd allow Punky to beat Superman.

As far as the decisive victories I think that's the good thing, he hasn't had them, yet. Meaning he has potential feuds for the next few years, something other world champions lately haven't had.

The only reason why I don't have Edge on there, is because he's never really been considered to be the legit #1 guy of the company at any point in his career...even when he was a World/WWE Champion all of those times. A lot of this has to do with the fact that Edge never got a clean and decisive victory over any 'top guys' in the company himself.

Batista on the other hand, was the #1 ,or co#1, guy in the company for a little while there in 2005.....when he cleanly defeated Triple H three consecutive times. Batista has also beaten Cena and Orton CLEANLY.

A victory over Shawn Michaels still has significance, but not quite the significance that it once did. HBK has done a number of jobs in recent years, and so the novelty of defeating HBK isn't quite what it once was.

Jeff Hardy beat HHH multiple times.

I think my point remains: At some point, a world champion, heel or face, needs some clean and decisive victories over guys that can be considered legitimate #1 guys in the company, so that they themselves can be considered legitimate #1 guys in the company.

In today's wrestling world, simply being a World or WWE champion will not make the fans believe that you are #1. Today's fans are smarter than in yester-year. If you become a World/WWE champ and do NOT get that much needed clean and decisive victory over a legit #1 guy, then you will be seen as nothing more than a transitional champ....and you will soon fall back down to earth once your title reign ends.

This was one of the reasons why guys like Rey Mysterio, Eddie Guerrero, Booker T, Big Show, Chris Jericho, and a whole slew of other wrestlers, never really had their pushes materialize into anything significant.

Never cleanly and convincingly in a one-on-one setting. Compare all of Hardy's victories to how Batista and Cena defeated HHH.

The Hurricane defeated The Rock back in the day as well. Was it cleanly and convincingly? Compare that to how Brock Lesnar defeated The Rock at Summerslam 2002.

There is a huge difference.

Pretty sure he went over HHH cleanly once or twice.

Maybe. I'll concede my point if that was in fact the case. To the best of my knowledge, the only time Jeff Hardy defeated Triple H cleanly, without any outside interference, etc., was during a triple threat match (I can't remember who the other opponent was.....might have been Edge).

Still - a clean victory in a triple threat still doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.

The only triple threat match I can think of where a guy legitimately went over big time, was when Benoit defeated HHH at Wrestlemania 20 when he made HHH tap out. Even with that however, Benoit was being built up hugely for months leading up to that.

I agree with the sentiment that Punk's OK for now. He's really just become a "top guy", despite his brief title runs before. As a heel he can get "screwjob" wins over top guys, while building his reputation just by being in the matches.

Then, when he eventually turns face, it allows him the ability to get over as an underdog again. When he wins those matches against the established guys, he's set.

I don't mind the screw job wins, as long as they aren't too flagrant....to the point where it's completely obvious that the opposing face would have won the match had it not been for interference.

Your underdog idea is also good, but here's what I'd rather see:

Winning as a heel (cowardly fashion) ---> Winning as a heel (convincing fashion) ----> Eventual face turn ---> Winning as a face (convincing fashion).

This was the path that many of the greats from yester-year took.

The WWE has to be careful with how cowardly they make their wrestlers (heel or face), otherwise they start to lose credibility.

Jeff Hardy was the most over wrestler in the WWE this year bar none. Also, Booker T and Rey Mysterio are top talent. Fuck all this "They have to beat this guy and that guy" to be that credible.

For the love of god, it is not good booking for heels to get clean wins over credible faces.

CM Punk has not really been a cowardly heel so far during his reign. He has said what he believes, and then he backs it up. He got some big victories over Jeff Hardy, and now he is getting technical submission victories over The Undertaker.

Let's see how Punk goes at Hell in a Cell, shall we? I trust Michael Hayes to know where he is going with CM Punk. With his new character, how well he is playing it, and how well it has caught on, Punk is never going to just disappear from the main event scene. Especially with three World Heavyweight Titles to his name already. That means he has technically won more World Heavyweight Titles than The Undertaker.

Instead of the "Big 5" you listed, I think that a more serious kind of main event ends up winning both the WWE and World Heavyweight Championship. Just look at the men that have done that: Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, The Undertaker, Edge, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, John Cena and Jeff Hardy.

Whether that is just by chance, or because winning both either suggests longetivity or success on both major brands in the WWE empire -- I think that the guys who have won both the WWE Title and World Heavyweight Title are easily perceived as the biggest stars. Guys like Big Show, Kane, The Great Khali and Rey Mysterio sort of take a backseat to them.

Oh ffs. He's a heel, he's meant to win like he has been. Everything is as it should be right now.

jeff hardy defeated hhh at a ppv very cleanly which led to his first reign i believe

Armageddon '07 led to his title shot against Orton at the '08 Royal Rumble.

God no what? You posted like I suggested that's what they do with him.

He hasn't really been winning by cheating though. When he has had an "unfair advantage", he's actually had a legit excuse. The Taker thing was interesting, we'll see where it goes but he hasn't so far.

He beat Jeff clean. And when he can't win it cleanly... he just loses (See John Morrison).

I like the thought that he can be in the right and just play off the fact that the fans will just blindly root for the "good guy" despite their ways.

Fuck you guys are hopeless. Leave the new guy alone. If he had of started a thread saying he liked the way Punk was cheating to win because it was helping his character you would have been saying that he needs clean wins to prove himself.

I agree with the kid. A clean win over the Undertaker and co wouldn't hurt Punk.


:)

People still pick on noobs?

Apparently so. Nothing worse than grown men trying to compete over dick size. "meh"

Excuse me?

-Triple H over Foley back in 2000......3 times.
-Triple H over Chris Jericho back in 2000 (last man Standing match)
-Dave Batista over Chris Benoit back in late 2004/early 2005 (can't remember the exact date).
-Randy Orton over Chris Benoit 2004.
-Brock Lesnar over The Rock 2002.
-Randy Orton over Rob Van Dam 2004.
-Brock Lesnar over Undertaker in 2002.

There are many more examples. What you are saying is simply not true.

In NONE of these cases, were the opposing faces negatively affected to the point where they lost all credibility. The heels on the other hand, benefited greatly from these clean victories. Now obviously, CM Punk isn't big enough physically to start dominating opponents with vicious power bombs, spears, etc., etc. However, I think it would be awesome if CM Punk just flat out beat other wrestlers using pure skill.

Would CM Punk have to win cleanly all the time? Of course not. However - more clean victories definitely would not hurt.

If the WWE keeps allowing Punk to defeat the Undertaker while being shown to be CLEARLY inferior....like their match at Breaking Point where Taker basically made Punk tap out and then only lost because he was too busy staring at Long....then it ultimately does NOTHING for Punk.

John Bradshaw Layfield a few years ago, is a good example. As a heelish champ, he always looked extremely inferior to the likes of Undertaker, etc., and barely scored victories. Ultimately, when his title reign came to an end, most of his crediblity came to a halt as well.

Lastly, in regards to CM Punk, he is legitimately the biggest and best thing to happen to the WWE in a few years. The WWE should make CM Punk look as credible and efficient as possible. If not now, do it eventually.

I don't mind CM Punk starting off as a cowardly or semi-cowardly heel that cheats to win. At some point however, I believe that a legitimate #1 heel starts winning matches on a CLEAN and DECISIVE way.....even if they initially start off as semi or fully-cowardly (or cheating_

Examples:

-Yokozuna
-Bret Hart
-Triple H
-Kurt Angle
-Brock Lesnar
-Edge
-Randy Orton

Heck - When The Rock defeated Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 19, it was done very cleanly....even though it was explained a night later that Austin had severe neck problems, etc. And yes, I realize it's a moot point since it was Austin's last match, but still....

OK - put it this way.

I agree to a large extent that Jeff Hardy was the most over wrestler in the WWE this year. However, don't you think it would have done MORE for his credibility and overness had he beaten the likes of John Cena, Batista, Undertaker, and Orton?

Maybe it's just me, but I still don't get a sense that the casual fan puts the likes of Hardy, Punk, Booker T, Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, etc., on the same 'level' as Triple H, John Cena, and Undertaker. I think if the WWE really wants to create new top guys in the company, then they literally have to go over the top guys.

To be the man, you've got to beat the man anyone?!?!?

Think about Wrestlemania 14 and the months leading up to it: Yes - Stone Cold Steve Austin was far and away the biggest star in the company, but how great was it for his career to go cleanly over HBK at Wrestlemania that year?

How great was it for Austin to go cleanly over Undertaker at Summerslam that year? See what I mean?

I agree that Punk could use some clean wins over some big names. He'll always seem second tier otherwise.

Just think about how everybody was so sure that The Undertaker was going to go over Punk at Breaking Point, and if he wasn't there was going to be a screw job. I'd like to see Punk get to the level where people genuinely feel that a match like that can go either way, and some clean wins would probably help that.

Exactly.

It would definitely be in the WWE's best interests to transition Punk from a cowardly and/or highly dependent cheater, to a guy that flat out beats you and/or wins with minimal cheating.

Triple H and Kurt Angle are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.

ABT knows. :y:

Punk should get clean wins over both The Undertaker and Batista. They're both old. Let Punk make his star over them, and then move on to Punk vs. Morrison, or something. Punk should actually be the first person who gets a submission victory over Taker.

That would be REALLY awesome for both CM Punk and the WWE...atleast from my perspective. :cool:

Clean victories over both Taker and Bats would really help establish Punk as the #1 guy of the company.

You know what I think would be cool?

Between now and Wrestlemania, the following happens:

-CM Punk feuds with Taker......kind of evens out. Punks moves on

-CM Punk feuds with Batista. After both men get victories (Punk by cheating, Batista cleanly), they have a tie-breaker match. CM Punk wins this match CLEANLY

-CM Punk gets into another brief feud with Taker....this time, just a one match type deal. CM Punk wins cleanly. After the match, Taker shake hands with Punk. Punk accepts (teasing a face turn), but then does something heelish afterwards.

-At Wrestlemania - John Cena and CM Punk have an interpromotional match (not sure how this would go down but somehow someway, these guys cross paths...maybe Cena wins the RR and challenges Punk?). CM Punk vs. John Cena is the final match on the card. During the match, the fans are clearly behind CM Punk.....and it's in this match that we see a heel/face switch. CM Punk wins cleanly and the fans go nuts. After the match, Cena flips off the fans....indicating a heel turn.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/news/200...y_310950.shtml

http://www.wwe-jeffhardy.com/2008/11...o-qualify.html

After some researching, it appears that both of you are right. Jeff Hardy defeated Triple H, cleanly, at both the Armageddon PPV in 2007 and at a match before Survivor Series in 2008.

HOWEVER........

Both clean victories were achieved with wimpy roll-ups. By contrast, whenever Triple H defeated Jeff Hardy, it was done more convincingly and decisively. And THAT is what I do not like.

If the WWE are genuinely interested in pushing new guys to the top, they have to...

-Allow the up-and-comers to get a non-flukey and decisive victory over the more established guy.

-Do NOT let the established guy get a 'return' victory where the ease of his victory outweighs the up-and-comer (or challenger).


For example - The WWE had Big Show defeat Undertaker cleanly (few times), but then had Undertaker defeat Big Show with more ease...and on more occassions.

Batista defeating Triple H back in 2005 is a PERFECT way to establish a guy as top-tier. THIS is what I would have liked to have seen the WWE do with Jeff Hardy. THIS is what I hope the WWE does with CM Punk.

This "noob" just showed me that just because he doesn't have as many posts as some, his wrestling knowledge may surpass theirs.

And i think Juan/ABT said it best in their first posts in this thread.

Yeah, I love Mogadishu.

I agree with this, I just think it's too soon at the moment. He just got the clean win to put him in the top tier over Hardy, it's fair for his character at present to be underestimated because of how untested he is against the "big" guys.

I think the character is evolving as it should, and don't doubt the wins will come with time. It suits Punk's character best if he doesn't become a dominator overnight.

And I should add that I'm a big fan of The Dishu's latest posts. Again, I dig the process, I just feel like we don't want too much too soon.

You can say it's too soon...but when will it be time? The Undertaker doesn't seem to have too much left in the tank. Neither does Batista. When does Punk get their rub? On their death beds?

Taker and Bats aren't going anywhere immediately. Having Punk play the coward role now and get back with clean wins building to WM makes more sense than him pulling a clean win over Taker out of nowhere at HIAC.

Just to pick and pop over this... HHH's victories over Foley and Jericho were in No-DQ-type matches. I agree with you that those don't fall into the category of bad booking. I don't mind the decisive aspect of the thread's title, but the clean part needs to be looked at closely. Is anyone going to say that CM Punk actually squeezing a submission out of Taker the other night would have been a good idea? Now if he manages to get a HIAC win, I won't mind so much (well, I won't mind logistically, we all know my feelings on Punk in general) as long as he can be decisively brutal and match up to the "hell" aspect of it all.

Additionally, Orton's win over Benoit was the start of a face turn. Lesnar's win over the Rock took place while the Rock was on the way out. Lesnar over the Undertaker was a way to cement Brock's status as an unstoppable beast. So again, I don't think those really fall in here. I don't recall Benoit/Batista or Orton/RVD.

I don't care if he wins or loses as long as he has a prominent role on the show.

At the end of the day it's all obvious shit. It's easy to agree with the topic starter... he's completely one hundred per cent right about this. However, it's going to take CM Punk as a small guy in a big man's world to step up massively, moreso than we could even imagine, to truly speak to the WWE upper brass.

The greats find a way to rise above all of the politics, and hopefully Punk does too. If not, it's another wasted opportunity on a great talent.

The heat CM Punk has been getting makes him pretty fucking valuable to the WWE right now. Given that he's also a three or four time former World Champion (depending on whether you include his ECW Title reign in there), I can't see Punk going anywhere anytime soon. The man has got time to get himself really established.

I agree, but there's a difference being a Chris Jericho compared to a Shawn Michaels or HHH if you know what I mean.

All 3 guys when heels get/got massive heat, but as far as the pecking order goes you know where they stand.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see CM Punk get there, too. I just don't think it needs to happen overnight. If I were booking, I would definitely give him the win against The Undertaker at Hell in a Cell, though. "I told you so..."

This is such a great point.

There comes a time in a wrestler's career, when he NEEDS that one definitive and decisive victory over a top guy to really establish himself.

Jericho, as great as he is, NEVER reached that upper echelon due to this. Yes, the guy beat Austin and The Rock in one night, but it was done in the flukiest way possible. Jericho is an example of a guy that never decisively and definitively beat a top guy. I'd even go as a far as saying that defeating someone definitively and decisively in a TRIPLE THREAT, doesn't do much as well. Chris Benoit, Rey Mysterio, and Jeff Hardy are examples.

In order to TRULY get someone over.....on a permanent basis, a guy needs a clear-cut one-on-one victory(ies) over a legit top guy. If this does NOT happen, then the title run ultimately becomes just that.....a run.

If they face each other outside WrestleMania, I would definitely like to see Jericho defeat The Undertaker. I think that would add a lot to his character.

It would definitely be great, but only if the WWE has a true intention of keeping Jericho at the top.....and having him get more clean victories over top-tier guys (i.e. Batista, Triple H, etc.).

The problem however, is this: Vince does NOT smaller guys. As much as I hate to admit, I highly doubt that the WWE will ever push Jericho beyond the level that he's been pushed at in the past (i.e. an upper card wrestler that gets a world title run every few years.....a run of which that consists of ZERO clean and decisive victories over the biggest names in the company). Because of this, Jericho will be nothing but a transitional champ at best.

I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing.

Big Show on the other hand, has pinned both Undertaker and John Cena cleanly in recent memory (unfortunately however, both Taker and Cena got their return victories over Big Show in a more convincing manner which ultimately nullified the whole thing).

I think Big Show is a guy that Vince would have no problem pushing under the right circumstance. However - if the WWE go this route, I'd like to see them turn Big Show into the dominating monster that he was back in 1999.......the guy that destroyed Test in 10 seconds, and the guy that threw Austin through the cage.

The problem with Big Show, though, is his versatility. I like Show and all, but those sort of guys are draws for obvious reasons -- their size. There's something outlandish about them that, to me, makes it hard to book an entire promotion around them. I mark out for Show when he goes on a rampage and everything, but I don't know how long he could be on top before people got bored, though.

Jericho's character is something that the WWE are pretty dependent on right now. I believe that a large part of the reason he and Edge initially won the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship was to get Jericho back on RAW. He's got a top spot, and I'd actually argue that while he's not the top guy or anything, he no longer looks out of place when put in the same ring as guys like Triple H and Batista.

Didn't Jericho beat Batista fairly cleanly in a Steel Cage Match last year to win the World Heavyweight Title? That sort of thing makes Jericho look like a beast. I'd love to see Jericho get at least one win over John Cena. Maybe even clean, when the WWE goes to Canada next, or something.

My memory is fading, and so I might be wrong.

Jericho did defeat Batista in the Steel Cage match, but I'm pretty sure that Batista was made to look far more dominant (and so Jericho either won by outside interference, or just managed to escape the cage faster despite being dominated). Either way - cleanly or not, Jericho was NOT made to look superior to Batista.

In the weeks leading up to that confrontation, I also recall Batista completely and utterly dominating Jericho in almost every confrontation that they had.
In my opinion, this is just bad booking....and simply helps re-enforce the idea that Jericho is nothing more than a transitional champ. In my opinion, there's a difference between a clean win....and a DECISIVE clean win. Getting a clean win, via roll-up or by some other NON-convincing technique, doesn't do a whole lot in terms of establishing a guy as a true main-eventer.

Also - great points about Big Show. I didn't think of it like that. I guess one advantage of Kane is that he wouldn't be limited to being a 'dominant big man' like Show would.

I'd laugh if they put him in a feud with Hornswoggle after his big push ends.

Nah he pwnd Batista pretty good in the cage match.

QFT.

Punk is over, he's the main heel on a show with both Jericho and Big Show as guys that could easily step up into the main event picture.

there is nothing wrong with a smarmy heel that gets victories with questionable results. thats how JBL got solidified.

if anything, it makes you want to see punk get his teeth kicked in even more!

It's too bad that the WWE didn't do anything with that. You would think that they would continue to push a talented guy like Jericho after beating one of the top stars cleanly and decisively. Makes no sense. All they ultimately did was undermine Batista instead of making Jericho look like a legit champ.

How did Jericho lose the title anyways? Despite my postings on here, I actually don't watch wrestling a whole lot anymore (haven't watched full-time since 2005). My guess is that he got spanked by Cena.

EDIT - http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/archive/11032008/

"In spite of the thorough beating Jericho received at the hands of Batista little more than a week before, the first-ever Undisputed Champion managed to once again slip away with a win by way of his underhanded tactics, bludgeoning The Animal with a steel ring wrenched from the cage surrounding them."

I really hate that. So basically, according to the article, Jericho got absolutely shit kicked by Batista a week earlier, and then basically beat Batista in a very flukey way (i.e. managed to once again slip away). See - I don't mind heels resorting to cheating in order to win. What I DO have a problem with however, is when a heel is made to win while also being made to look *way* inferior (as was the case with Jericho).

"This reign would last until the 2008 Survivor Series, where Jericho lost to the returning John Cena." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_J...BatistaCage-73)

So basically, Jericho then gets spanked by a returning John Cena....which then basically re-enforces the idea that Jericho was nothing more than just a transitional champ.

Jericho should not have lost the title when he did to John Cena, I'll agree with that.

Pretty much.

Your name is Ironballs. I like that.