CM Punk: No credibility before his match with Taker?

[PSachkovsky]

He's lost to the Rock twice, lost to Cena. He's a cowardly heel who couldn't beat Ryback. I mean if Triple H and Shawn Michaels couldn't beat Undertaker, then what chance does Punk have?

Now don't sell me that: "he won fatal four way", because that's a load of sh*t, we knew from the start that he is going to win this match. But still didn't gave enough reason to why he actually deserves a match with Taker.

Now if Punk was the June 2011-July 2012 face, this matchup would have even better, because he would have credibility and he wouldn't be a cowardly heel.

 

[Stopspot]

Punk is heel credible. He cheats, he lies and he does any underhanded tactic in the book to win. He's not credible like a guy like Triple H but he has his own form of credibility. And it isn't like people think he is completely incapable of wrestling.

 

[Lockard 23]

Punk still has a string of wins and accomplsihments behind him to make him a credible opponent for Undertaker. They can play it as Punk just reaching down deep to put on his very best come Wrestlemania, making people believe he can actually end the sport's greatest streak.

Wins and losses don't always mean as much as people think. Punk is someone who can talk his way into making people believe he can win a big time match, even if he's just come off a string of losses.

Despite having to cheat through all three of his matches with Ryback, he still came off as a credible opponent for The Rock. He put on a excellent performance against The Rock and even had him beat cleanly at Elimination Chamber, if you'll recall. His loss against Cena doesn't hurt him at all because he's defeated him before and that match was about as much of a 50/50 match as any match ever has been. Something called the Ric Flair Rule Of Wrestling should be referred to on that one.

Just have him go on an undefeated streak of his own in the remaining weeks leading up to Wrestlemania.

 

[RoyalRaven]

Punk still has a string of wins and accomplsihments behind him to make him a credible opponent for Undertaker. They can play it as Punk just reaching down deep to put on his very best come Wrestlemania, making people believe he can actually end the sport's greatest streak.

Wins and losses don't always mean as much as people think. Punk is someone who can talk his way into making people believe he can win a big time match, even if he's just come off a string of losses.

Despite having to cheat through all three of his matches with Ryback, he still came off as a credible opponent for The Rock. He put on a excellent performance against The Rock and even had him beat cleanly at Elimination Chamber, if you'll recall. His loss against Cena doesn't hurt him at all because he's defeated him before and that match was about as much of a 50/50 match as any match ever has been. Something called the Ric Flair Rule Of Wrestling should be referred to on that one.

Just have him go on an undefeated streak of his own in the remaining weeks leading up to Wrestlemania.

The end of this post is what i'd have suggested to do, Though he could beat would be tough. Maybe throw him beating Kane in there at somepoint.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Punk is no threat to the streak. Nobody thinks he can win because be wont.

 

[Stopspot]

In my opinion the build up for Punk needs to be him feeding his ego. Proving that he is "big" enough to end the Undertaker. To make it all more interesting.

 

[Testify]

He's lost to the Rock twice, lost to Cena. He's a cowardly heel who couldn't beat Ryback. I mean if Triple H and Shawn Michaels couldn't beat Undertaker, then what chance does Punk have?

Now don't sell me that: "he won fatal four way", because that's a load of sh*t, we knew from the start that he is going to win this match. But still didn't gave enough reason to why he actually deserves a match with Taker.

Now if Punk was the June 2011-July 2012 face, this matchup would have even better, because he would have credibility and he wouldn't be a cowardly heel.

Punk is no threat to the streak. Nobody thinks he can win because be wont.

Exactly. No wins over some filler guys will get him any cred back, srsly.

 

[Leo C]

I personally don't really think he'll beat the streak anyway. But as a WWE heel, that's not really a surprise, so I'll enjoy the feud/match for what it is.

 

[Rysenberg]

People seem to undersell the streak so much when it comes to credibility. Just look at the long ass list of guys who have failed to beat it. A guy like CM Punk who's been beaten in his last three big matches just isn't credible enough. Whether he got that pin over Rock is irrelevant, nobody actually believes he's gonna win from what I see.

Still, not complaining, good filler year for the Undertaker and the match will easily be in the 4-5* range. Will do wonders for Punk as well.

 

[seabs]

People seem to undersell the streak so much when it comes to credibility. Just look at the long ass list of guys who have failed to beat it. A guy like CM Punk who's been beaten in his last three big matches just isn't credible enough. Whether he got that pin over Rock is irrelevant, nobody actually believes he's gonna win from what I see.

Still, not complaining, good filler year for the Undertaker and the match will easily be in the 4-5* range. Will do wonders for Punk as well.

So he lost to John Cena? A man who's steam rolled all over the previous 8 years then lost to The Rock, the only man to topple the previously mentioned Cena and he isn't credible all of a sudden? Even though he managed to hold the WWE title for longer than most ever do? He beat a former 6 times world champion in Jericho 2 times in a row, a former WHC in Daniel Bryan 2 times in a row and another former 2 time Worlds Champion in Kane, he also beat the monster Ryback twice.

You guys are either underestimating Punk or over estimating the impact of losing to Rock.

 

[Rysenberg]

So he lost to John Cena? A man who's steam rolled all over the previous 8 years then lost to The Rock, the only man to topple the previously mentioned Cena and he isn't credible all of a sudden? Even though he managed to hold the WWE title for longer than most ever do? He beat a former 6 times world champion in Jericho 2 times in a row, a former WHC in Daniel Bryan 2 times in a row and another former 2 time Worlds Champion in Kane, he also beat the monster Ryback twice.

You guys are either underestimating Punk or over estimating the impact of losing to Rock.

The streak is the absolute biggest thing in WWE by a mile for me, losing three times in two months before that match instantly means he isn't credible enough for the match IMO. Yeah, the defeats were to Rock and Cena, but people are gonna be sitting there thinking 'well, if he can't beat Rock and Cena, how the hell does he beat Taker at Wrestlemania?'. Defeating Jericho and Bryan doesn't mean a thing in my eyes, and yeah Ryback was too long ago, you look at how things stand just now Punk is really struggling to get a victory.

The only way he could have possibly looked credible enough is if he kept the title, at the moment he's just lost too many times recently to look believable - and he doesn't exactly have the look to make up for it.

 

[seabs]

The streak is the absolute biggest thing in WWE by a mile for me, losing three times in two months before that match instantly means he isn't credible enough for the match IMO. Yeah, the defeats were to Rock and Cena, but people are gonna be sitting there thinking 'well, if he can't beat Rock and Cena, how the hell does he beat Taker at Wrestlemania?'. Defeating Jericho and Bryan doesn't mean a thing in my eyes, and yeah Ryback was too long ago, you look at how things stand just now Punk is really struggling to get a victory.

The only way he could have possibly looked credible enough is if he kept the title, at the moment he's just lost too many times recently to look believable - and he doesn't exactly have the look to make up for it.

He didn't have the look or the booking to be credible against the rock, who is a bigger aspect than Taker and his streak IMO (that's highly overrated IMO) but he managed it because he's that good. Just chill and watch Punk end the streak.

 

[Rysenberg]

He didn't have the look or the booking to be credible against the rock, who is a bigger aspect than Taker and his streak IMO (that's highly overrated IMO) but he managed it because he's that good. Just chill and watch Punk end the streak.

But he had 434 days against Rock which made him seem more than credible enough, a combination of the things I have mentioned are the reason I don't think he is credible enough.

But yeah as I said excited as hell for the match and fued anyways. MOTN fo' sure.

 

[seabs]

But he had 434 days against Rock which made him seem more than credible enough, a combination of the things I have mentioned are the reason I don't think he is credible enough.

But yeah as I said excited as hell for the match and fued anyways. MOTN fo' sure.

He still has the 434 days thing lol, now he's more focused than ever as a way to prove he's above Rock and Cena, he's a man possessed. Reminds me a bit of him staring at the ROH title after drawing with Joe.

 

[leojay]

Who needs credibility? I mean, didn't Swagger just go from years of jobbing, being a joke and losing to Santino week in and out to being in a surprisingly well built up WM WHC feud?

And if we really want to go by kayfabe credibility, Punk did have Rocky down legit for 15 seconds did he not? And he is the one that Cena constantly puts over as being impossible for him to beat, right? And he was the guy that had a 434 day title reign, the longest in 25 years, right?

Yeah, you're right. Not credible at all. Should be versing Kane at WM like the extremely credible Orton did last year IMO.